Russia

Special Report

Executive Summary From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi The geopolitical “big picture” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the deepening of the Russo-Chinese strategic partnership. While Russia’s economic and military constraints did not prohibit military action in Ukraine, they are still relevant. Most likely they will prevent a broader war with NATO or a total energy embargo of Europe. Still, volatility will persist in the near term as saber-rattling, aftershocks, and spillover incidents will occur this year.  Russo-Chinese relations are well grounded. Russia needs investment capital and resource sales, while China needs overland supply routes and supply security. Both seek to undermine the US in a new game of Great Power competition that will prevent global politics and globalization from normalizing. Tactically we remain defensive but buying opportunities are emerging. We maintain a cyclically constructive view. Favor equity markets of US allies and partners that are geopolitically secure. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 32.7% Bottom Line: Tactically investors should remain defensive but cyclically they should look favorably on cheap, geopolitically secure equity markets like those of Australia, Canada, and Mexico. Feature To understand the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the likely consequences, investors need to consider three factors: 1.  Why Russia’s constraints did not prohibit war and how constraints must always be measured against political will. 2.  Why Russia’s constraints will grow more relevant going forward, as the costs of occupation and sanctions take hold, the economy weakens, and sociopolitical pressures build. 3.  Why the struggle of the Great Powers will drive a Russo-Chinese alliance, whose competition with the US-led alliance will further destabilize global trade and investment. Russia’s Geopolitical Will Perhaps the gravest national security threat that Russia can face, according to Russian history, is a western military power based in the Ukraine. Time and again Russia has staged dramatic national efforts at great cost of blood and treasure to defeat western forces that try to encroach on this broad, flat road to Moscow. Putin has been in power for 22 years and his national strategy is well-defined: he aims to resurrect Russian primacy within the former Soviet Union, carve out a regional sphere of influence, and reduce American military threats in Russia’s periphery. He has long aimed to prevent Ukraine from becoming a western defense partner. Chart 1Russia Structured For Conflict While Moscow faced material limitations to military action in Ukraine, these were not prohibitive, as we have argued. Consider the following constraints and their mitigating factors: Costs of war: The first mistake lay in assuming that Russia was not willing to engage in war. Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 and before that Georgia in 2008. The modern Russian economy is structured for conflict: it is heavily militarized (Chart 1). Military spending accounts for 4.3% of GDP, comparable to the United States, also known for waging gratuitous wars and preemptive invasions. Financial burdens: The second mistake was to think that Moscow would avoid conflict for fear of the collapse of the ruble or financial markets. Since Putin rose to power in 2000, the ruble has depreciated by 48% against the dollar and the benchmark stock index has fallen by 57% against EMs. Each new crackdown on domestic or foreign enemies has led to a new round of depreciation and yet Putin remains undeterred from his long-term strategy (Chart 2). Chart 2Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Ruble Or Stocks Economic health: Putin’s foreign policy is not constrained by the desire to make the Russian economy more open, complex, advanced, or productive. While China long practiced a foreign policy of lying low, so as to focus on generating wealth that could later be converted into strategic power (which it is doing now), Russia pursued a hawkish foreign policy for the past twenty years despite the blowback on the economy. Russia is still an undiversified petro-state and total factor productivity is approaching zero (Chart 3). Chart 3Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Productivity​​​​​​ Chart 4Putin Doesn’t Eschew Conflict For Fear Of Sanctions​​​​​​ Western sanctions: Western sanctions never provided a powerful argument against Russian intervention into Ukraine. Russia knew all along that if it invaded Ukraine, the West would impose a new round of sanctions, as it has done periodically since 2014. The 2014 oil crash had a much greater impact on Russia than the sanctions. Of course, Russia’s overall economic competitiveness is suffering, although it is capable of gaining market share in exporting raw materials, especially as it depreciates its currency (Chart 4). Chart 5Putin Doesn't Eschew Conflict For Sake Of Popular Opinion Public opinion: Surely the average Russian is not interested in Ukraine and hence Putin lacks popular support for a new war? True. But Putin has a strong record of using foreign military adventures as a means of propping up domestic support. Of course, opinion polls, which confirm this pattern, are manipulated and massaged (Chart 5). Nevertheless Russians like all people are highly likely to side with their own country in a military confrontation with foreign countries, at least in the short run. Over the long haul, the public will come to rue the war. Moscow believes that it can manage the domestic fallout when that time comes because it has done so since 2014. We doubt it but that is a question for a later time. Investors also need to consider Putin’s position if he did not stage ever-escalating confrontations with the West. Russia is an autocracy with a weak economy – it cannot win over the hearts and minds of its neighboring nations in a fair, voluntary competition with the West, the EU, and NATO. Russia’s neighbors are made up of formerly repressed Soviet ethnic minorities who now have a chance at national self-determination. But to secure their nationhood, they need economic and military support, and if they receive that support, then they inherently threaten Russia and help the US keep Russia strategically contained. Russia traditionally fights against this risk. Bottom Line: Investors and the media focused on the obstacles to Russian military intervention without analyzing whether there was sufficient political will to surmount the hurdles. Constraints Eroded None of the above suggests that Putin can do whatever he wants. Economic and military constraints are significant. However, constraints erode over time – and they may not be effective when needed. Europe did not promise to cancel all energy trade if Russia invaded: Exports make up 27% of Russian GDP, and 51% of exports go to advanced economies, especially European. Russia is less exposed to trade than the EU but more exposed than the US or even China (Chart 6). However, Russia trades in essential goods, natural resources, and the Europeans cannot afford to cut off their own energy supply. When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, the Germans responded by building the Nord Stream pipeline, basically increasing energy cooperation. Russia concluded that Europeans, not bound to defend Ukraine by any treaty, would continue to import energy in the event of a conflict limited to Ukraine. Chart 6Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of EU Energy Trade​​​​​​ Chart 7Putin Limits Conflict For Sake Of Chinese Trade​​​​​​ Russia substitutes China for Europe: As trade with the West declines, Russia is shifting toward the Far East, especially China (Chart 7). China is unlikely to reduce any trade and investment for the sake of Ukraine – it desperately needs the resources and the import-security that strong relations with Russia can provide. It cannot replace Europe – but Russia does not expect to lose the European energy trade entirely. (Over time, of course, the EU/China shift to renewables will undermine Russia’s economy and capabilities.) Ukraine is right next door: Aside from active military personnel, the US advantage over Iraq in 2002-03 was greater than the Russian advantage over Ukraine in 2022 (Chart 8). And yet the US got sucked into a quagmire and ultimately suffered political unrest at home. However, Ukraine is not Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia wagers that it can seize strategic territory, including Kiev, without paying the full price that the Soviets paid in Afghanistan and the US paid in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a very risky gamble. But the point is that the bar to invading Ukraine was lower than that of other recent invasions – it is not on the opposite side of the world. ​​​​​​​Chart 8Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Overreach Chart 9Putin Limits Conflict For Fear Of Military Weakness NATO faces mutually assured destruction: NATO’s conventional military weight far surpasses Russia’s. For example, Russia, with its Eurasian Union, does not have enough air superiority to engage in offensive initiatives against Europe, even assuming that the United States is not involved. Even if we assume that China joins Russia in a full-fledged military alliance under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), NATO’s military budget is more than twice as large (Chart 9). However, this military constraint is not operable in the case of Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Indeed, Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine stems from its fear that Ukraine will become a real or de facto member of NATO. It is the fear of NATO that prompted Russia to attack rather than deterring it, precisely because Ukraine was not a member but wanted to join. Bottom Line: Russia’s constraints did not prohibit military action because several of them had eroded over time. NATO was so threatening as to provoke rather than deter military action. Going forward, Russia’s economic and military constraints will prevent it from expanding the war beyond Ukraine.  Isn’t Russia Overreaching? Yes, Russia is overreaching – the military balances highlighted in Charts 8 and 9 above should make that plain. The Ukrainian insurgency will be fierce and Russia will pay steep costs in occupation and economic sanctions. These will vitiate the economy and popular support for Putin’s regime over the long run. Chart 10The West Is Politically Divided And Vulnerable The West is also vulnerable, however, which has given rise to a fiscal and commodity cycle that helps to explain why Putin staged his risky invasion at this juncture in time: The US and West are politically divided. Western elites see themselves as surrounded by radical parties that threaten to throw them out and overturn the entire political establishment. Their tenuous grip on power is clear from the thin majorities they hold in their legislatures (Chart 10). Nowhere is this clearer than in the United States, where Democrats cannot spare a single seat in the Senate, five in the House of Representatives, in this fall’s midterm elections, yet are facing much bigger losses. Russia believes that its hawkish foreign policy can keep the democracies divided.​​​​​​​ Elites are turning to populist spending: Governments have adopted liberal fiscal policies in the wake of the global financial crisis and the pandemic. They are trying to grow their way out of populist unrest, debt, and various strategic challenges, from supply chains to cyber security to research and development (Chart 11). China is also part of this process, despite its mixed economic policies. The result is greater demand for commodities, which benefits Russia.    Elites are turning to climate change to justify public spending: Governments, particularly in Europe and China, are using fears of climate change to increase their political legitimacy and launch a new government “moonshot” that justifies more robust public investment and pump-priming. The long-term trend toward renewable energy is fundamentally threatening to Russia, although in the short term it makes Russian natural gas and metals all the more necessary. Germany especially envisions natural gas as the fossil-fuel bridge to a green future as it has turned against both nuclear power and coal (Chart 12). Russian aggression will provoke a rethink in some countries but Germany, as a manufacturing economy, is unlikely to abandon its goals for green industrial innovation. Chart 11Politically Vulnerable States Need Fiscal Stimulus​​​​​​ Chart 12The West Reluctant To Abandon Climate Goals​​​​​​ Proactive fiscal and climate policy motivate new capex and commodity cycle: The West’s attempt to revive big government and strategic spending will require vast resource inputs – resources that Russia can sell at higher prices. The new commodity cycle gives Russia maximum leverage over Europe, especially Germany, at this point in time (Chart 13). Later, as inflation and fiscal fatigue halt this cycle, Russia will lose leverage. Chart 13Commodity Cycle Gives Russia Advantage (For Now) Meanwhile Russia’s economic and hence strategic power will subside over time. Russia’s potential GDP growth has fallen since the Great Recession as productivity growth slows and the labor force shrinks (Chart 14). Chart 14Future Will Not Yield Strategic Opportunities For Russia​​​​​​ Chart 15Younger Russians Not Calling The Shots (But Will Someday) In short, the Kremlin has chosen the path of economic austerity and military aggression as a means of maintaining political legitimacy and achieving national security objectives. Western divisions, de-carbonization, the commodity cycle, and Russia’s bleak economic outlook indicated that 2022 was the opportunity to achieve a pressing national security objective, rather than some future date when Russia will be less capable relative to its opponents. In the worst-case scenario – not our base case – the invasion of Ukraine will trigger an escalation of European sanctions that will lead to Russia cutting off Europe’s energy and producing a global energy price shock. And yet that outcome would upset US and European politics in Russia’s favor, while Putin would maintain absolute control at home in a society that is already used to economic austerity and that benefits from high commodity prices. Note that Putin’s strategy will not last forever. Ukraine will mark another case of Russian strategic overreach that will generate a social and political backlash in coming years. While Putin has sufficient support among older, more Soviet-minded Russians for his Ukraine adventure, he lacks support among the younger and middle-aged cohorts who will have to live with the negative economic consequences (Chart 15). The entire former Soviet Union is vulnerable to social unrest and revolution in the coming decade and Russia is no exception. The Russo-Chinese Geopolitical Realignment Chart 16From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi From a broader, geopolitical point of view, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drives another nail into the coffin of the post-Cold War system and hyper-globalization. Russia is further divorcing itself from the western economy, with even the linchpin European energy trade falling victim to renewables and diversification. The US and its allies are imposing export controls on critical technologies such as semiconductors against Russia to cripple any attempts at modernization. The US is already restricting China’s access to semiconductors and from now on is locked into a campaign to try to enforce these export controls via secondary sanctions, giving rise to proxy battles in countries that Russia and China use to circumvent the sanctions. Russia will be forced to link its austere, militarized, resource-driven economy to the Chinese economy. Hence a major new geopolitical realignment is taking place between the US, Russia, and China, on the order of previous realignments since World War II. When the Sino-Soviet communist bloc first arose it threatened to overwhelm the US in economic heft and dominate Eurasia. This communist threat drove the US to undertake vast expeditionary wars, such as in South Korea and Vietnam. These were too costly, so the US sought economic engagement with China in 1972, which isolated the Soviet Union and ultimately helped bring about its demise. Yet China’s economic boom predictably translated into a strategic rise that began to threaten US preeminence, especially since the Great Recession. Today Russia and China have no option other than to cooperate in the face of the US’s increasingly frantic attempts to preserve its global status – and China’s economic growth and technological potential makes this alliance formidable (Chart 16). In short, the last vestiges of the “Nixon-Mao” moment are fading and the “Putin-Xi” alignment is already well-established. Russia cannot accept vassalage to China but it can make many compromises for the sake of strategic security. Their economies are much more complimentary today than they were at the time of the Sino-Soviet split. And Russia’s austere economy will not collapse as long as it retains some energy trade with Europe throughout the pivot to China. In turn the US will attempt to exploit Russian and Chinese regional aggression as a basis for a revitalization of its alliances. But Europe will dampen US enthusiasm by preserving economic engagement with Russia and China. The EU is increasingly an independent geopolitical actor and a neutral one at that. This environment of multipolarity – or Great Power Struggle – will define the coming decades. It will ensure not only periodic shocks, like the Ukraine war, but also a steady undercurrent of growing government involvement in the global economy in pursuit of supply security, energy security, and national security. Competition for security is not stabilizing but destabilizing. Hyper-globalization has given way to hypo-globalization, as regional geopolitical blocs take the place of what once promised to be a highly efficient and thoroughly interconnected global economy. Investment Takeaways Tactically, Geopolitical Strategy believes it is too soon to go long emerging markets. Russia is at war, China is reverting to autocracy, and Brazil is still on the path to debt crisis. Multiples have compressed sharply but the bad news is not fully priced (Chart 17). The dollar is likely to be resilient as the Fed hikes rates and a major European war rages. Europe’s geopolitical and energy insecurity will weigh on investment appetite and corporate earnings. American equities are likely to outperform in the short run. Chart 17Investors Should Not Bet On Russian And European Equities In This Context​​​​​ Chart 18Investors Find Value, Minimize Risk In Geopolitically Secure Equity Markets​​​​​​ Cyclically, global equities outside the US, and pro-cyclical assets offer better value, as long as the war in Ukraine remains contained, a Europe-wide energy shock is averted, and China’s policy easing secures its economic recovery. While European equities will snap back, Europe still faces structural challenges and eastern European emerging markets face a permanent increase in geopolitical risk due to Russian geopolitical decline and aggression. Investors should seek markets that are both cheap and geopolitically secure – namely Australia, Canada, and Mexico (Chart 18). We are also bullish on India over the long run.    Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Special Report

Executive Summary EU-Russia Energy Trade To Persist Russia invaded Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a defense partner of the US and its allies. It is not likely to attack NATO members, which share a mutual defense treaty, so the war is limited in scope. Spillovers can occur but the US and Russia have 73 years of experience avoiding direct war. The US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions but they will not halt Russian energy exports, as that would cause a recession in Europe. European political leaders would likely fall from power in the coming years if there were a full-scale energy crisis. European nations will leverage Russian aggression to strengthen their popular support at home, while diversifying away from Russian energy over the long run. Europe will impose tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, including finance and technology, to hobble the regime. China will consolidate power at home and strengthen ties with Russia but a war over Taiwan is a medium-to-long term risk.   Bottom Line: Investors should be cautious over the very near term but should prepare to buy the dip of a geopolitical incident that is generally limited to Ukraine and the Black Sea area. Supply responses from oil producers will remove the risk premium from oil prices and send the price of Brent crude to $85 per barrel by the end of the year. EU-Russia energy flows are the key risk to monitor. Feature Russia launched an invasion of Ukraine on February 24. The invasion was not limited to the far eastern corner of the country but involved attacks in the capital Kiev and in the far west and the coastline. Hence investors should proceed on the assumption that Russia will invade all of Ukraine even if it ends up limiting its invasion, as we expect (Map 1). Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine 2022 It is critical for investors to understand the cause of the war in order to gauge its scope and adjust their risk appetite accordingly. Consider: Ukraine does not have mutual defense treaties that automatically trigger a broader war. Russia is attacking Ukraine to prevent it from becoming a defense partner of the US and its allies. Russia does not have the military capacity to attack the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, which have a mutual defense pact. Russia is attacking Ukraine because it does not have a mutual defense pact but was seeking one. Russia aims to neutralize Ukraine. If Moscow sacks Kiev and sets up a puppet state, then Ukraine will not seek western defense cooperation for the foreseeable future. If Russia conquers key territories to strengthen its control over Ukraine, then future Ukrainian governments will limit relations with the West for fear of Russian absorption. Russia is likely to seize coastal territory to ensure the long-term ability to blockade Ukraine. Russia will not withdraw troops until it has changed the government and seized key territories. Russia and NATO have no interest in war with each other. In the immediate fog of war, global financial markets will experience uncertainty about whether fighting will expand into a broader war between Russia and NATO. Such an expansion is unlikely because of mutually assured destruction (MAD) due to nuclear weapons. The US and Europe have already pledged that they will not send troops to fight in Ukraine. They will send troops and arms to support neighboring NATO states in central Europe, such as the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and others. This will serve as a deterrent to Russia to keep its operations limited. Spillover incidents can and will occur, such as with Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in 2014, but the US and Russia have 73 years of experience avoiding direct war, including when Russia invaded Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979. The US and EU will levy sweeping sanctions but the EU will not halt Russian energy exports. When Russia first invaded Ukraine and seized territory in 2014, Germany responded by working with Russia to build the Nord Stream II pipeline so as to import energy directly from Russia and circumvent Ukraine. This historical fact over the past eight years reveals Germany’s true interests. Thus energy cooperation increased as a result of Russian aggression. Of course, Germany has suspended the certification of that pipeline in light of today’s invasion, but it was not yet operating, so energy flows are not impeded, and it still physically exists for future operation when Germany finds it politically expedient. Hungary, Italy, Finland, the Czech Republic and others will also need to keep up Russian energy flows. Chart 1EU-Russia Energy Trade To Persist Nevertheless, a cessation of energy flows is still the most important risk for investors to monitor, whether triggered by European boycott or Russian embargo. That would cause a recession in Europe. Recession would cause European political leaders to fall from power in the coming years, which explains why they will not pursue that objective in face of Russian aggression. Even the US is vulnerable to a global price shock (during a midterm election year) and hence will allow the EU to keep importing Russian energy, whatever its sanctions package may contain. True, Russia may cut off natural gas flows via Ukraine, which account for nearly 20% of Europe’s imports (Chart 1). Moreover, Europe may threaten or claim that they will sanction the energy sector. But most flows will likely continue. Europe will diversify away from Russian energy over the long run. Instead of cutting off their own vital energy supplies, European nations will leverage Russian aggression to strengthen their popular support at home, while initiating emergency state-led efforts to diversify away from Russian energy over the long run through renewables and imports from the US and its allies. This will be advantageous to European democracies that were already struggling to increase political legitimacy amid nascent populism – they will now have a crusade with which to rally their people and maintain fiscal support for their economy: energy security. Europe will sanction Russia’s non-energy sector. Europe will impose tough sanctions on Russia’s non-energy sectors, including finance and technology, to hobble the regime. Russia will eventually be cut off from the SWIFT banking communications network, since it already has a rudimentary alternative that it developed in recent years, but Germany will not agree to cut it off until the payment alternate to continue energy flows can be arranged, which is ultimately possible. China will take advantage of the moment but is probably not ready to invade Taiwan. China could seize the opportunity to consolidate power at home and it may increase pressure on Taiwan through rhetoric, sanctions, or cyber-attacks, but it is not likely to invade Taiwan. An amphibious invasion of the globally critical territory of Taiwan is far riskier for China than a land invasion of the non-critical territory of Ukraine is for Russia. Russia’s strategic calculations and timing are separate from China’s, despite their growing de facto alliance. But a war in the Taiwan Strait is at risk over the long run, as the situation is geopolitically unsustainable, for reasons similar to that of Ukraine. The situation in Ukraine is likely to get worse before it gets better, implying that investors should expect further volatility in risk assets in the near term. Structurally, the shift to a less geopolitically stable multipolar world will favor defense and cybersecurity stocks. “Great Power Struggle” is our top geopolitical investment theme over the long run and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlights its continuing relevance. Bottom Line: A buying opportunity for heavily discounted, pro-cyclical or high-beta assets is emerging rapidly, given our assessment, and we will monitor events over the coming weeks to identify when such a shift is prudent. A wholesale energy cutoff to Europe is the chief risk, as it would justify downgrading global equities relative to long-maturity bonds on a six-to-12 month horizon. Investment Takeaways Global Investment Strategy: With real rates coming down, owning gold remains an attractive hedge. As a fairly cheap and defensive currency, a long yen position is advisable. Assuming the conflict remains contained to Ukraine, equities and other risk assets should recover over the remainder of the year. The geopolitical premium in oil prices should also come down. Consistent with our Commodity & Energy Strategy views, our Global Investment Strategy service is closing its long Brent trade recommendation today for a gain of 24.0%. Commodities & Energy Strategy: While oil exports from Russia are not expected to diminish as a result of the invasion, it will prompt increased production from core OPEC producers – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait – to take the elevated risk premium out of Brent crude oil prices and allow refiners to rebuild inventories. The US and Iran may rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, which would add about 1.0mm b/d of production to the market – Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea did not prevent the original nuclear deal. These production increases would take prices from the current $105 per barrel level to $85 per barrel by the second half of 2022 and keep it there throughout 2023, according to our base case view. This change marks an increase on our earlier expectation of an average $79.75 per barrel in 2023 in our previous forecast. European Investment Strategy: European equities are likely to continue to underperform in the near-term. Even if Russia and Europe avoid a full embargo of Russian energy shipments to the West, the disruption caused by a rupture of natural gas flows via Ukraine will keep European gas prices at elevated levels. Additionally, investors will continue to handicap the needed risk premia to compensate for the low but real threat of an energy crisis, which would prove particularly debilitating for Hungary, Poland, Germany, Czechia and Italy (Chart 2). Moreover, European equities sport a strong value and cyclical profile with significant overweight positions in financial and industrial equities. Industrials will suffer from higher input costs. European financials will suffer from a decline in yields as hawks in the European Central Bank are already softening their rhetoric on the need to tighten policy. However, due to the likely temporary nature of the dislocation, we do not recommend selling Europe outright and instead will stick with our current hedges, such as selling EUR/JPY and EUR/CHF. The evolution of the military situation on the ground will warrant a re-valuation of this hedging strategy next week. The euro will soon become a buy. Chart 2EU Economy Highly Vulnerable To Any Large Energy Cutoff Foreign Exchange Strategy: The Ukraine crisis will lead to a period of strength for the US dollar (DXY). Countries requiring foreign capital will be most at risk from an escalation in tensions. We still suspect the DXY will peak near 98-100, but volatility will swamp fundamental biases. Geopolitical Strategy: On a strategic basis, stick with our long trades in gold, arms manufacturers, UK equities relative to EU equities, and the Japanese yen. On a tactical basis, stick with long defensive sectors, large caps, Japanese equities relative to German, and Mexican equities relative to emerging markets. We will revisit these trades next week, after the European energy question becomes clearer, to determine whether to book profits on our bearish tactical trades.   – The BCA Research Team  

Executive Summary Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Ukraine crisis is escalating as predicted. We maintain our odds: 65% limited incursion, 10% full-scale invasion, 25% diplomatic de-escalation. Russia says it will take “military-technical” measures as its demands remain unmet, while the US says an invasion is imminent. Fighting has picked up in the Donbas region. Our Ukraine decision tree highlights that the key to a last-minute diplomatic resolution is a western renunciation of defense cooperation with Ukraine after a verified Russian troop withdrawal. The opposite is occurring as we go to press. Stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (STRATEGIC) 2019-12-06 27.6% Bottom Line: Our 75% subjective odds of a partial Russian re-invasion of Ukraine appear to be materializing. At the same time, we are not as optimistic about an imminent solution to the US-Iran nuclear problem. A near-term energy price spike is negative for global growth so we recommend sticking with our defensive tactical trades. Feature Chart 1Ukraine: Don't Be Complacent Fears about a heightened war in Ukraine fell back briefly this week before redoubling. Russian President Vladimir Putin showed a willingness to pursue diplomacy but then western officials refuted Russian claims that it was reducing troops around Ukraine. US President Biden said Russia is highly likely to invade Ukraine in the next few days. The Russian foreign ministry sent a letter reiterating Russia’s earlier threat that it will take unspecified “military-technical” actions given that its chief demands have not been met by the United States. A worsening security outlook as we go to press will push the dollar up against the euro, the euro up against the ruble, will lead to global equities falling (with US not falling as much as ex-US), and global bond yields falling (Chart 1). To assess the situation we need to weigh the signs of escalation against those of de-escalation. What were the signs of de-escalation? First, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed it is reducing troop levels near Ukraine, although NATO and the western powers have not verified any drawdown. An unspecified number of troops were said to return to their barracks in the Western and Southern Military Regions, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov. A video showed military units and hardware pulling back from Crimea. Officials claimed all troops would leave Belarus after military drills ended on February 20.1 Second, the Kremlin signaled that diplomacy has not been exhausted. In a video released to the public, Putin met with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He asked whether there was still a chance “to reach an agreement with our partners on key issues that cause our concern?” Lavrov replied, “there is always a chance.” Putin replied, “Okay.” Then, after speaking with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Moscow, Putin said: "We are ready to work further together. We are ready to go down the negotiations track.”2 Third, the Ukrainians are supposedly restarting efforts to implement the 2015 Russia-imposed ceasefire, under pressure from Germany and France. Ukraine’s ruling party is expected to introduce three bills to the Rada (parliament) that would result in implementing the terms of the Russian-imposed 2015 ceasefire, the so-called Minsk II Protocols. Ukraine is supposed to change its constitution to adopt a more federal system that grants autonomy to the two Russian separatist regions in the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine is also supposed to hold elections.3 The caveats to these three points are already clear: The US said Russia actually added 7,000 troops to the buildup on the Ukrainian border. Without Russia’s reducing troops, the US and its allies cannot offer major concessions. The US cannot allow itself to be blackmailed as that would encourage future hostage-taking and blackmail. Putin’s offer of talks is apparently separate from its “military-technical” response to the West’s failure to meet its three core demands on NATO. Russia’s three core demands are no further NATO enlargement, no intermediate-range missiles within threatening range, and withdrawal of NATO forces from eastern Europe to pre-1997 status. Putin reiterated that these three demands are inseparable from any negotiation and that Russia will not engage endlessly without resolution. Yet the West has consistently rejected these demands. Then came the Foreign Ministry statement pledging Russia’s military-technical response. So talks that focus on other issues – like missile defense and military transparency – are a sideshow. Ukraine is reiterating its desire to join NATO and will struggle to implement the Minsk Protocol. The Minsk format is not popular in Ukraine as it grants influence and recognition to the breakaway ethnic Russian regions. Ostensibly President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has sufficient strength in the Rada to change the constitution, given the possibility of assistance from opposition parties that oppose war or favor Russia. But passage or implementation could fail. The Russian Duma has also advised Putin to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics as independent countries, which Putin is not yet ready to do, but could do if Ukraine balks, and would nullify the Minsk format.4 Of Russia’s three core demands, investors should bear in mind the following points: Ukraine is never going to join NATO. One of the thirty NATO members will veto its membership to prevent war with Russia. Therefore Russia is either making this demand knowing it will fail to justify military action, or driving at something else, such as NATO defense cooperation with Ukraine. Even if NATO membership is practically unrealistic, the US and NATO are providing Ukraine with arms and training, making it a de facto member. The quality and quantity of western defense cooperation is not sufficient to threaten Russia’s military balance so far but it could grow over time and Russia is insisting that it stop. While there is also a broader negotiation over Europe’s entire security system, immediate progress depends on whether the US and its allies stop trying to turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO ally. NATO is not going to sacrifice all of the strategic, territorial, and military-logistical gains it has made since 1997. Especially not when Russia is attempting to achieve such a dramatic pullback by military blackmail. But NATO could reduce some of the most threatening aspects of its stance if Russia reciprocates and there is more military transparency. Similarly, the US and Russia have a track record of negotiating missile defense deals so this kind of agreement is possible over time. The problem, again, hinges on whether agreement can be found over Ukraine. The opposite looks to be the case. Based on the above points, Diagram 1 provides a “Decision Tree” that outlines the various courses of action, our subjective probabilities, and the sum of the conditional probabilities for each final scenario. Diagram 1Russia-Ukraine Decision Tree, February 9, 2022 We start with the view that there is a 55% chance that the status quo continues: the West will not rule out Ukraine’s right to join NATO and will not halt defense cooperation. If this is true, then the new round of talks will fail because Russia’s core security interests will not be met. However, we also give a 25% chance to the scenario in which Ukraine is effectively barred from NATO but not defense cooperation. This may be the emerging scenario, given Chancellor Scholz’s point that Ukrainian NATO membership is not on the agenda and the White House’s claim that it will not pressure states to join NATO. Basically, western leaders could provide informal assurances that Ukraine will never join. But then the matter of defense cooperation must be resolved in the next round of talks. Given that the US and others have increased arms transfers to Ukraine in recent months and years (with US providing lethal arms for the first time in 2018), it seems more likely (60/40) that they will continue with arms transfers. After all, if they halt arms, Russia can invade anyway, but Ukraine will have less ability to resist. We allot a 15% chance to a scenario in which the US and its allies halt defense cooperation, even if they officially maintain NATO’s “open door” policy. If the Russians withdraw troops in this scenario, then a lasting reduction of tensions will occur. Again, while allied defense cooperation has been limited so far, it is up to Russia whether it poses a long-term threat. Finally, we give a 5% chance that the US and NATO will bar Ukraine from membership and halt defense cooperation. This path would mark a total capitulation to Russia’s demands. So far the allies have done nothing like this. They have insisted on NATO’s open door policy and have continued to transfer arms. No one should be surprised that tensions are escalating. De-escalation could still conceivably occur if Russia verifiably withdraws troops, if Ukraine moves to implement the Minsk II protocol, and if the US and its allies pledge to halt defense cooperation with Ukraine. The first step is for Russia to reduce troops, since that enables the US and allies to make major concessions when they are not under duress. If the US and NATO guarantee they will halt defense cooperation, given that Ukraine is practically unlikely to join NATO, then Russia may not be as concerned with Ukraine’s implementation of Minsk. As we go to press, none of these conditions are falling into place. The security situation is deteriorating rapidly. Bottom Line: Russia is likely to stage a limited military intervention into Ukraine (75%). The odds of a diplomatic resolution at the last minute are the same (25%). A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine remains unlikely (10%). Market Reaction To Re-Escalation Chart 2 highlights the global equity market response to the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, which should serve as the baseline for assessing the market reaction to any renewed attack today. Stocks fell and moved sideways relative to bonds for several months, cyclicals (except energy) underperformed defensives, small caps briefly rose then collapsed against large caps, and value stocks rose relative to growth stocks. The takeaway was to stay invested over the cyclical time frame, prefer large caps, and prefer value. The difference today is that cyclicals and small caps are already performing worse against defensives and large caps than in 2014, while value has vastly outstripped growth (Chart 3). The implication is that once war breaks out, cyclicals and small caps have less room to fall whereas value has limited near-term upside. Chart 2Market Response To Crimea Invasion, 2014​​​​​​ Chart 3Market Response 2022 Versus 2014​​​​​​ If we look closely at global equity gyrations over the past week – when the Ukraine story moved to front and center – we see that stocks are falling relative to bonds, cyclicals are flat relative to defensives, small caps are rising relative to large caps, and value is flat relative to growth but may have peaked (Chart 4). In the short term the geopolitical dynamic will move markets so we expect cyclicals, small caps, and value to underperform. Commodity prices and the energy sector are initially benefiting from tensions as expected – oil prices and energy equities spiked amid the tensions (Chart 5). But assuming war materializes, Russia will at least cut off natural gas flowing through Ukraine, cutting off about 20% of Europe’s natural gas supply and triggering a bigger price shock. Ultimately, however, this price shock will incentivize production, destroy global demand, and drive energy prices down. Chart 4Global Equities Just Woke Up To Ukraine​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Energy Sector Just Woke Up To Ukraine​​​​​ Thus we expect energy price volatility. Russia will keep shipping energy to Europe to finance its military adventures. Europe will be loath to slap sanctions on critical energy supplies, assuming Russia’s military action is limited. The Saudis may or may not increase production to prevent demand destruction – in past Russian invasions they have actually reduced production once prices started to fall. A temporary US-Iran nuclear deal could release Iranian oil to the market, though that is not what we expect in the short run (discussed below). Bottom Line: Tactically investors should favor bonds over stocks, the US dollar and US equities over global currencies and equities (especially European), defensive sectors over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and growth over value stocks. Is Ukraine Already Priced? Not Yet. Chart 6Crisis Events And Peak-To-Trough Market Drawdown The peak-to-trough equity drawdown – in geopolitical crises that are comparable to a Russian invasion of Ukraine – range from 11%-14% going back to 1931. The following research findings are derived from a list of select events, from the Japanese invasion of China to the German invasion of Poland to lesser invasions, all the way down to Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. We used the S&P 500 as it is the most representative stock index over this long period of time. The fully updated and broader list of geopolitical crises can be found in Appendix 1. Geopolitical crises tend to trigger an average 10% equity decline, smaller than economic crises or major terrorist attacks (Chart 6). The biggest geopolitical shocks to the equity market occur when an event is a truly global event, as opposed to regional shocks. Interestingly Europe-only shocks have seen some of the smallest average drawdowns at around 8% (Chart 7). An expanded Ukraine war would be limited to Europe. The average equity selloff is largest, at 14%, if both the US and its allies are directly involved in the geopolitical event. But the range is 11%-14% regardless of whether the US or its allies are involved (Chart 8). Ukraine is not an official ally, which is one reason the markets will tend to play down a larger war there. However, the market is underrating the fact that Ukraine’s neighbors are NATO members and will have a powerful interest in supporting the Ukrainian militant insurgency, which could lead to unexpected conflicts that involve NATO member-state’s citizens. Chart 7Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Where Is The Crisis?​​​​​​ Chart 8Geopolitical Crises And Markets: Who Are The Players?​​​​​​ Chart 9Russian Invasion Scenarios And Likely Equity Impact The Russians have as many as 150,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, according to President Biden’s latest speech. The Ukrainian active military numbers 215,000. This ratio is not at all favorable for a full-scale invasion. The Russians are contemplating a limited action directed at teaching Ukraine a lesson or encroaching further onto Ukrainian territory, especially coastal territory. History suggests that a limited incursion will produce a 10% total equity drawdown, whereas a full-scale invasion would produce 13% or more (Chart 9). Still, investors should view 11%-14% as the appropriate range for a geopolitically induced crisis. The S&P has fallen by 9% since its peak on January 3, 2022. But Russia has not invaded yet. If war breaks out, there is more downside, given high uncertainty. Markets could still be surprised by the initial force of any Russian military action. The US will impose sweeping sanctions immediately. The Europeans will modify their sanctions according to Russia’s actions, a key source of uncertainty. If a diplomatic resolution is confirmed – with Russia withdrawing troops and the US and its allies cutting defense cooperation with Ukraine – then the market may continue to rally. However, there are other reasons to be cautious: especially inflation and monetary policy normalization, with the Federal Reserve potentially lifting rates by 50 basis points in March. Bottom Line: Stocks can fall further given that investors do not yet know the magnitude of the Russian military action or the US and European sanctions response. However, a buying opportunity is around the corner once this significant source of global uncertainty is clarified. New Iran Deal Is Neither Guaranteed Nor Durable A short note is necessary on the situation with Iran, another major risk this year, which falls under our third 2022 key view: oil-producing states gain geopolitical leverage. The implication is that the Iran risk will not be resolved quickly or easily. The global economy could suffer a double whammy of energy supply shock from Ukraine and energy supply risk in the Middle East this year. The US-Russia showdown is connected to the US-Iran nuclear negotiation. Russia took Crimea in 2014 in part because it saw an opportunity to exact a price from the United States, which sought Russia’s assistance in negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Today a similar dynamic is playing out, in which Russian diplomats cooperate on Iranian talks while encroaching on Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon and thus will offer some limited cooperation to this end. Their pound of flesh is Ukraine. According to media reports, the Iranian negotiations have seen some positive developments over the past month. US interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Biden administration has an interest in preventing Iran from reaching “breakout” levels of uranium enrichment and triggering a conflict in the region that would drive up oil prices ahead of the midterm election. It is going to be hard for Biden to remove sanctions in the context of Russian aggression but it is likely he would do it if the Iranians recommit to complying with the 2015 restrictions on their nuclear program. Iranian interest in rejoining the 2015 deal: The Iranians have an interest in convincing President Biden to remove sanctions to improve their economy and reduce the risk of social unrest. They are demanding the removal of all sanctions, not only those levied by President Trump. They also know that rejoining the 2015 deal itself is not so bad, since it starts expiring in 2025 and does not limit their missile production or support of militant proxies in the region. However, note that the Iranian regime has suppressed domestic instability since Trump’s “maximum pressure” sanctions, and the economy is improving on oil prices, so the threat of social unrest is not forcing Iran to accept a deal today. Also note that Iran is making demands that cannot be met: Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian is asking the US to provide guarantees that the US will not renege on the deal again, for example if the Republicans return to the White House in 2025. President Biden cannot provide these guarantees. The voting margins are too thin for a “political statement,” promising that the US will not renege on a deal, to pass Congress. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might be willing to provide such a statement to the Iranians, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer probably will not – he opposed the originally 2015 deal. Even if Congress gave Iran guarantees, the fact remains that the GOP could win the White House in 2025, so the current, hawkish Iranian leadership cannot be satisfied on this front. Furthermore, even if Biden pulls back sanctions and Iran complies with the 2015 deal for a brief reprieve, Iran’s underlying interest is to obtain a deliverable nuclear weapon to achieve regime survival in the future. Iran faces a clear distinction between Ukraine, which gave up nukes and is now being dismembered (like Libya and Iraq), and North Korea, which now has a deliverable nuclear arsenal and commands respect from the US on the national stage. Moreover if the Republicans take back power in 2025, Iran will want to have achieved or be close to achieving a deliverable nuclear weapon. The Biden administration is weak at home and facing a crisis with Russia, which may present a window of opportunity for Iran to make a dash for the nuclear deterrent. Still, we acknowledge the short-term risk to our pessimistic view: It is possible that Iran will rejoin the deal to gain sanctions relief. In this case about 1-1.2 million barrels per day of Iranian crude will hit the global market. The implication, depending on the size of the energy shock, is that Brent crude prices will fall back to the $80 per barrel average that our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects. We also agree with our Commodity & Energy Strategist that global oil production will pick up in the face of supply risks that threaten to destroy demand. Bottom Line: We doubt Iran will rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal quickly. We expect energy prices to continue spiking in the short term due to Ukraine and any setbacks in the Iran negotiations. Yet we also expect oil producers around the world to increase production, which will sow the seeds for an oil price drop. Our tactical trade recommendations rest on falling oil prices and bond yields in the short run. Investment Takeaways Stay long gold. Stay long global defensive equity sectors over cyclicals. Favor global large caps over small caps. Stay long cyber security stocks and aerospace/defense stocks relative to the broad market. Stay long Japanese industrials relative to German and long yen. Stay long British stocks relative to other developed markets excluding the US, and long GBP-CZK. Favor Latin American equities within emerging markets, namely Mexican stocks and Brazilian financials relative to Indian stocks.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See "Russia Announces Troop Withdrawal," Russia Today, February 15, 2022, rt.com; "Ukraine crisis: Russian claim of troop withdrawal false, says US," BBC, February 17, 2022, bbc.com. 2     David M. Herszenhorn, “On stage at the Kremlin: Putin and Lavrov’s de-escalation dance,” Politico, February 14, 2022, politico.eu. 3     "Scholz says Zelensky promised to submit bills on Donbass to Contact Group," Tass, February 15, 2022, tass.com; "Scholz in Kyiv confirms Germany won’t arm Ukraine, stays mum on Nord Stream 2," February 15, 2022, euromaidanpress.com. 4     "Kiev makes no secret Minsk-2 is not on its agenda — Russian Foreign Ministry," Tass, February 17, 2022, tass.com; Felix Light, "Russian Parliament Backs Plan To Recognize Breakaway Ukrainian Regions," Moscow Times, February 15, 2022, themoscowtimes.com. Appendix 1: Geopolitical Events And Equity Market Impact Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Executive Summary Oil-Price Risk Skewed Upward The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent prices will dissipate over the next month. Russia's best outcome is to follow the off-ramp offered by the US. President Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week will result in higher oil output from the Kingdom, the UAE and Kuwait, in return for deeper US defense commitments. The Biden administration and Iran are in a hurry to get a deal done: The US wants lower oil prices, and Iran needs the revenue. Our Brent forecasts for 2022 and 2023 are revised slightly to $81.50 and $79.75/bbl, respectively, reflecting supply-demand adjustments. Price risks are tilted to the upside: A miss on any of the above assumptions will keep prices above $90/bbl, and push them higher. Bottom Line: Oil demand will remain robust this year and next.  To keep prices from surging from current levels into demand-destruction territory, additional supply is needed.  Most of this will come from KSA, the UAE and the US shale-oil producers.  We expect prices to fall from current prompt levels this year and next.  This will support sovereign budgets and oil producers' free cashflow goals.  We remain long the XOP ETF. Feature The $10-$15/bbl risk premium in Brent crude oil prices will dissipate, as the following supply-side events are ticked off: 1)   Russia gets on the off-ramp offered by the US last week to de-escalate the threat of another invasion of Ukraine by withdrawing its troops from the border;1 2)   OPEC 2.0's core producers – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait – increase supply in return for deeper US security commitments; 3)   Iran restores its remaining 1.0 – 1.2mm b/d of production to the market, following the restoration of its nuclear deal with Western powers; and 4)   US shale-oil producers step up production in response to higher WTI prices. Politics, Then Economics The first three assumptions above are political in nature, requiring a bargain be struck among contending interests to resolve. We do not believe Russia's endgame is to jeopardize its future oil and gas exports to the West, particularly to the EU (Chart 1). The US is warning that another invasion of Ukraine will put the use of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to deliver gas to Germany at risk.2 It also is worthwhile noting NATO is aligned with the US on this stance. Russia derived 40-50% of its budget revenues from oil and gas production, and ~ 67% of its export revenue from oil and gas over the decade ended in 2020.3 Of course, only President Putin can determine whether oil and gas sales can be diversified enough – e.g., via higher shipments to China – to offset whatever penalties the West imposes. But, in a game-theoretic sense, the stakes are very high, and taking the US off-ramp is rational. Chart 1Russia's Critical Exports: Oil + Gas We expect the second assumption to play out in the near term, following US President Joe Biden's call to KSA's King Salman last week. The outreach stressed the US commitment to defend KSA and, presumably, its close allies in the Gulf (the UAE and Kuwait).4 KSA already has increased its production to 10.15mm b/d under the OPEC 2.0 agreement to restore 400k b/d beginning in August 2021. We estimate the coalition had fallen behind on this effort by ~ 1mm b/d, as only KSA, the UAE and Kuwait presently have the capacity to lift production and sustain it (Table 1). KSA's reference production level agreed at OPEC 2.0's July 2021 meeting will rise to 11.5mm b/d in June, up 500k b/d from its current level (Table 2). This means KSA could flex into another 850k b/d between now and the end of May; and another 500k b/d after that. The UAE's and Kuwait's reference production levels will rise 330k and 150k b/d in June to 3.5mm b/d and 3.0mm b/d, respectively. Markets will need these incremental volumes as demand continues to recover and non-core OPEC 2.0 production continues to fall (Chart 2). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Table 2Baseline Increases For Core OPEC 2.0 Our third assumption reflects our reading of the signaling by Iran over the past few weeks, which indicate growing confidence a deal with the US to restore the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is in the offing.5 The politics here converge with the economics: the Biden Administration wants to increase oil supply ahead of mid-term elections in the US to keep gasoline prices under control; Iran needs to increase its revenues. Both sides get an immediate need satisfied. However, the risks to KSA and its Gulf allies will increase as Iran's revenues grow, because it will be able to fund proxy-war operations against the Gulf states. This is why deepening the US defense commitment to the region is critical to KSA and its allies. The last assumption reflects our view US E+P companies are being incentivized to lift production by high prompt and deferred prices. We continue to expect these companies – particularly those in the US shales, where the majority of the production increase will occur – to husband their capital resources closely, and to continue to prioritize shareholder interests. As capital availability declines – primarily due to reduced investor interest in investing in hydrocarbon production – these firms will have to focus on reducing operating costs and increasing productivity over the next decade to fund growth. Relative to 2021, we expect US oil production to increase 0.85mm b/d this year and by 0.53mm b/d in 2023 relative to this year, as producers respond to higher prices (Chart 3). Chart 2Increased Core OPEC 2.0 Production Becoming Critical Chart 3US Oil Production Will See Another Up Leg Supply-Demand Balances Are Tight Global oil demand growth this year is reduced slightly in our balances – going to 4.5mm b/d from 4.8mm b/d, mostly reflecting our assessment of slowing growth as central banks remove monetary accommodation. We lifted next year's growth estimate slightly, to 1.7mm b/d. These estimates still leave our growth expectations above the major data providers, the highest of which is OPEC's 4.2mm b/d estimate. We continue to expect DM demand to level off this year and next, and EM demand to retake its position as the global demand growth engine (Chart 4). The supply side remains tight, with average global crude oil and liquid fuels production estimated at 101.5mm b/d for 2022 and 102.8mm b/d for next year. With demand expected to average 101.5mm b/d this year and 103.2mm b/d next year, markets will remain balanced but tight (Chart 5). This means inventories will continue to be strained, leaving little in the way of a cushion to absorb unexpected supply losses (Chart 6).  Chart 4EM Demand Retakes Growth-Engine Role Chart 5Markets Remain Balanced But Tight... Chart 6...Keeping Pressure On Inventories Markets Remain Balanced But Tight Our supply-demand analysis indicates markets will remain balanced but tight, with inventories under pressure until supply increases. This will predispose markets to higher price volatility, as low inventories force prices to ration supply. This will increase the backwardation in the Brent and WTI curves, which will bolster the convenience yield in both of these markets (Chart 7).6 We expect implied volatility to remain elevated, as a result (Chart 8). Chart 7Backwardation Will Keep Convenience Yield Elevated Chart 8High Volatility Will Persist Because of these low inventory values, Brent prices for 2022 are higher than our previous estimate. By 2023, the effects of increased supply from KSA, UAE, Kuwait – albeit a marginal increase – and the US kick in to reduce prices. As supply increases, the risk premium currently embedded in Brent prices will decline, pushing them to our forecasted levels for 2022 and 2023 of $81.50/bbl and $79.75/bbl, respectively. For 1H22, we expect Brent prices to average $87.20/bbl, and in 2H22 we're forecasting a price of $75.80/bbl on the back of increased production. Next year, higher output will keep prices close to $80/bbl, with 1H23 Brent averaging $79.85 and 2H23 averaging $79.70/bbl. Word Of Caution Our analysis is predicated on strong assumptions regarding the incentives of oil producers taking a rational view of the need for stability and supply in markets. The bottom panel of Chart 9 provides an indication of how tenuous markets are if our assumptions are mistaken, and core OPEC 2.0 does not increase production, Iranian barrels are not returned to the market, or the US shale supply response is less vigorous than we expect. The highest price trajectory occurs when all of our assumptions prove wrong, which takes Brent prices above $140/bbl by the end of 2023. It goes without saying this is non-trivial. But we'll say it anyway: This is non-trivial. We can reasonably expect feedback loops in such a case – e.g., US and Canadian production kicks into high gear, and once-idled North Sea are brought back into service. However, this takes time, and will cause demand destruction on a global scale. Chart 9Scenarios For Oil Prices   Investment Implications Oil markets will remain tight and volatile until additional supplies are forthcoming. We are expecting core OPEC 2.0 to lift output by 3.2mm b/d this year, and for the US Lower 48 production to average 9.8mm b/d. The US production increase will be led by higher shale-oil output, which we expect to average 7.4mm b/d this year and 7.8mm b/d in 2023. Given the tight markets we expect, we remain long the XOP ETF, and commodity index exposure in the form of the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF, an optimized version of the S&P GSCI.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Marketed volumes of US natural gas are expected to hit a record high of just under 107 Bcf/d next year as prices stabilize close to $4/MMBtu, in the EIA's latest estimate. This is up from just over 104 Bcf/d of marketed production this year, which itself was a 3 Bcf/d increase over 2021 levels. Almost all of this will come from the Lower 48 (97%). We expect US LNG exports to increase on the back of rising production and further investment in export terminals. Most of this will be shipped to Europe, in our estimation, as EU states seek to diversify LNG sources in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine standoff currently underway. LNG imports accounted for roughly one-fifth of all natural gas supplied to the UK and EU-27 in 2020, according to the EIA, which notes, "Growing volumes of flexible LNG supplies, primarily from the United States, contributed to the notable increases in LNG imports to Europe from 2019 to 2021." Wide price differentials can be expected to support the flow of LNG to Europe from the US (Chart 10). Base Metals: Bullish Iron ore prices took a hit after China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stated its intentions to stabilize iron ore markets, crack down on speculation and false price disclosures after prices in 2022 rallied sharply last week.  Authorities believe price strength is coming from speculation and hoarding, which is adding to inflationary pressures.  However, fundamental factors have been, and likely will keep iron ore prices buoyed.  Based on past steel inventory levels and seasonal patterns, steel production will increase and more than double current inventory levels by end-March. Monetary policy easing, and the push by China’s steel industry to become carbon-neutral over the next five years are additional fundamental factors supporting iron ore prices. Precious Metals: Bullish The January print for US CPI jumped 7.5% year-on-year, beating estimates as headline inflation rose to a 40-year high.  Markets are expecting around five interest increases this year (Chart 11).  BCA’s US Bond Strategy expects rate hikes will be around 100 – 125 bps this year.  Gold prices initially fell on the possibility of increasing rate hikes and a hawkish Fed, but in the second half of last week settled at subsequently higher prices on each day.  Apart from increased inflation demand, this was likely due to markets’ fear of the possibility of an ultra-hawkish Fed, which could tighten US financial conditions and see a rotation out of US equity markets into safe-haven assets or into other markets ex-US, both of which will be bullish for gold. Chart 10 Chart 11         Footnotes 1     Please see Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on the President’s Call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, released by the US White House on February 12, 2022. 2     Please see Long-Term EU Gas Volatility Will Increase, which we published on February 3, 2022 for further discussion.  The EU is a huge market for Russia supplies Germany with 65% of its gas.  Approximately 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020. 3    Please see Russia’s Unsustainable Business Model: Going All In on Oil and Gas, published on January 19, 2021 by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS). 4    Please see Readout of President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, released on February 7, 2022. The readout noted, " issues of mutual concern, including Iranian-enabled attacks by the Houthis against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia." Energy security also was discussed, which we read as code for a deal to increase production in return for a deepening of US defense commitments. This line is followed closely by Gulf media – e.g., It took Biden a year to realize Saudi Arabia’s vital regional role, published by arabnews.com on February 13, 2022, which notes: "If Putin decides to invade Ukraine, the Saudis are the only ones who could help relieve the unsteady oil markets by pumping more crude, being the largest crude exporter in the OPEC oil production group. The White House emphasized that both leaders further reiterated the commitment of the US and Saudi Arabia in ensuring the stability of global energy supplies. 5    Please see Iran 'is in a hurry' to revive nuclear deal if its interests secured -foreign minister, published by reuters.com on February 14, 2022. 6    Please see our November 4, 2021 report entitled Despite Weaker Prices Crude Oil Backwardation Will Persist for additional discussion of convenience yields and volatility.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021  

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices​​ Regardless of whether Russia invades all, part of or none of Ukraine again, its current standoff with the West will force the EU to reconfigure its gas markets to assure reliability of supplies, and remove geopolitical supply disruptions. We expect the EU's renewable energy taxonomy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel, which will help build more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets.  Success here will increase market share of natgas in EU power generation. In the short run (1-2 years), neither the EU nor Russia can afford Gazprom's pipeline supplies to be significantly curtailed. Over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply. Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses. High and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation – particularly food prices, because of higher fertilizer costs, and base metals' prices.  Shortages in these markets will slow the energy transition, and raise its price tag. Bottom Line: The Russian standoff with the West over Ukraine puts a higher risk premium in EU gas prices.  We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI, and COMT ETF), and the XME ETF.  We are getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP) at tonight's close. Feature We expect the EU's financial taxonomy for renewable energy scheduled for release Wednesday will include natgas as a sustainable fuel. This will help in building out more diversified sources of supply and deeper spot and term markets. Success here will increase the market share of natgas in the EU's power generation (Chart of the Week). This coincides with natural gas supply uncertainty, arising from geopolitical tensions. On the back of already-low inventory levels, European natural gas markets are forced to handicap the odds of a major curtailment of Russian pipeline gas supplies resulting from another invasion of Ukraine (Chart 2).  This is keeping a significantly increased risk premium embedded in natgas prices: Russian exports to the EU account for 40% of total gas supplies.  Germany is particularly exposed, as  ~65% of its gas comes from Russia (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekEU Natgas Generation Will Rise In Energy Transition BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy desk upgraded the odds of Russia invading Ukraine to 75% from 50% in its latest research report.1  Our colleagues, however, keep the probability of Russia invading all of Ukraine low.  Their analysis concludes Russia will only invade a part of Ukraine, so as to argue for lighter sanctions being imposed on it by the West, as opposed to having to incur the full wrath of US and EU sanctions.  The other 25% of the probability space includes a diplomatic settlement between the West and Russia. Chart 2Risk Premium In EU Gas Prices While Russia has been trying to diversify its customer base – by increasing natgas exports to China, e.g. – data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy shows ~ 78% of total natural gas exports (pipeline + LNG) from Russia went to the EU in 2020.2  Chart 3EU Highly Dependent On Russian Gas In light of the fact that Russia likely will face watered-down sanctions, and the EU’s gargantuan share of total Russian exports, we do not believe Europe’s largest natural gas exporter will stop all supply to the EU now or in the near future. In case Russia does go through with its invasion, it likely will cut off natural gas supply to Ukraine, implying Europe will loose slightly more than 6% of total natgas imports as opposed to 40% in the event of a halt to all natgas exports to Europe (Chart 4).  Gas consumption of the EU-27 in 2021 was ~ 500 Bcm, according to the Oxford Institute For Energy Studies (OIES).  Some 85% of EU gas consumption was met by imports. Chart 4Imports Cover Most EU Gas Consumption Can The EU Mitigate The Loss Of Russian Gas? The EU and the US have entered discussions with other countries to plug the potential 6% reduction in imports from Russia.  While in theory, there is enough spare pipeline capacity to import natural gas from existing and new sources (Chart 5), practical limitations may prevent this from occurring.3 The US is working with the EU to ensure energy supply security in case Russia cuts off natural gas supply. However, as can be seen in Chart 6, Panel 1, the US currently is and likely will continue to export nearly at capacity until end-2023. Panel 2 shows global liquefaction also is nearly at capacity. Chart 5EU Gas Import Capacity Exists, But Filling It Will Be Problematic Chart 6US LNG Export Capacity Maxed Out While an increase in gas production at the earthquake-prone Groningen field in the Netherlands is theoretically viable, it will induce a public backlash, as was evidenced when the Dutch government announced plans to double output from the field earlier this year. In the short run, facing few sources of alternate gas supply, the EU will need to focus on curtailing demand. Fossil fuels will need to be considered as an alternative for electricity and heating, since nuclear is not used in all EU countries.  The depth of this crisis and the Dutch TTF price rise will be capped by the fact that we expect the EU to lose a relatively small fraction of total imports.  Further, while we expect Dutch TTF prices to be volatile and face upward pressure, any price increases also will be capped by the fact that the colder-than-expected Northern Hemisphere winter has not yet materialized, and the warmer Spring and Summer months will be approaching soon. Medium-, Long-Term EU Gas Supply On the supply side, over the medium- and long-term, the EU will need to deepen and stabilize its gas supply, so that firms and households can rationally forecast and allocate spending and investment.  This would include finding back-up or alternative supplies to Russian imports, which carry with them uncertain geopolitical risk.  If Brussels includes natural gas as a sustainable fuel in its energy taxonomy, over the medium term (3-5 years), alternative supplies from US and Qatari LNG exports will be required to deepen EU gas-market liquidity and supply.  Longer term (i.e., beyond 2025), EU energy markets will remain volatile as the renewable-energy transition progresses.  Natgas will be a critical component of this transition, until utility-scale battery storage is able to support renewable generation and grid stability.  We believe over the remainder of this decade, high and volatile natgas prices will translate into persistent EU inflation, as pricing pressures spill into oil and coal markets at the margin, as happened over the course of last year.  This will work in the other direction as well – e.g., higher coal prices will spill over into gas and oil markets as price pressures incentivize fuel switching at the margin. Food prices will be right in the inflationary cross-hairs, given the fertilizer required to produce the grains and beans consumed globally consists mostly of natgas in urea and ammonia fertilizers (Chart 7).  This will feed into higher food prices (Chart 8). Chart 7High Natgas Prices Will Show Up In High Fertilizer Prices Chart 8… And Higher Food Prices Base metals' prices also will be upwardly biased as natgas price volatility remains elevated.  Supply shortages in natgas markets will, at the margin, slow the energy transition by reducing reliable energy supplies in the EU, forcing states to compete for back-up and replacement supply in the global LNG markets.  Fuel-switching into oil, gas and coal will transmit EU gas volatility to markets globally. Tight energy and base metals markets also will feed directly into higher inflation and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Higher Commodity Prices Will Pressure Inflation Higher   Investment Implications The standoff between the West and Russia over the latter's amassing of troops on the Ukraine border, plus the marked increase in the tempo of Russian naval operations, will keep the risk premium in EU natgas prices high.  This is not a sustainable equilibrium over the medium- to long-term.  We expect little if any curtailment of Russian natgas exports over the short term; however, prudence suggests EU member states will be forced to find back-up and alternative gas supplies over the medium- to longer-term, as the global renewable-energy transition gains traction. The knock-on effects from the current European geopolitical standoff are keeping EU natgas prices elevated via a higher risk premium to cover possible supply losses.  This will feed into other markets – particularly metals and ags – which will feed directly into inflation and inflation expectations. We remain long commodity index exposure – the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF – and metals producers via the XME ETF.  At tonight's close, we will be getting long the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP).   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish OPEC 2.0's decision to stay with its policy of returning 400k b/d every month appeared to be a foregone conclusion in the markets.  In our January 2022 balances and price forecasts, we anticipated a larger increase, given the producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia has fallen significantly behind its goal of returning 400k b/d to the market monthly due to declining production among OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Gulf GCC member states, chiefly KSA, UAE and Kuwait (Iraq's exports fell in December and January; production data have not been released).  In the past, KSA has said it will not make up for production shortfalls of OPEC 2.0 member states, and would abide by its production allocation. The upside risk to prices remains, in our estimation, and we continue to expect KSA and its GCC allies to increase output if production from the price-taking cohort led by the US shale-oil producers fails to materialize in over the coming months.  Failure to cover production shortfalls among OPEC 2.0 member states would lift Brent prices by $6/bbl above our baseline forecast, which assumed higher production from the GCC states would be forthcoming at Wednesday's OPEC 2.0 meeting (Chart 10, brown curve). Base Metals: Bullish An environmental committee in Chile's Senate voted out a proposed bill that would, among other things, reportedly make it easier for the government to seize mines developed and operated by private companies.  The proposed legislation still has a long road ahead of it, but copper prices rallied earlier in the week as this news broke.  Even if the odds of the bill's passage are slim, a watered down version of the proposed legislation would markedly change the economic proposition of developing and maintaining copper mines in Chile (Chart 11).  We continue to follow this closely.   Chart 10 Chart 11     Footnotes 1     Please see All Bets Are Off ... Well, Some (A GeoRisk Update), published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service 27 January 2022.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see bp's Statistical Review of World Energy 2021 | 70th edition. 3    Norway, the EU’s second largest gas exporter after Russia stated that its natural gas production is at the limit. Apart from the issue of production, current LNG flows will need to be redirected from Asia and the Americas. Defaulting on long-term contracts to redirect fuel to Europe could mire exporters’ relationships with importing countries. Finally,  infrastructure in the Eastern and Central section of the EU may not be equipped to receive supplies from the West, thus increasing costs and time associated with putting these systems in place.    Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

BCA Research is proud to announce a new feature to help clients get the most out of our research: an Executive Summary cover page on each of the BCA Research Reports. We created these summaries to help you quickly capture the main points of each report through an at-a-glance read of key insights, chart of the day, investment recommendations and a bottom line. For a deeper analysis, you may refer to the full BCA Research Report. Executive Summary The tensions between Russia and the West over Ukraine are boiling over, as the risk of a conflict escalates. Following Washington’s written response to Moscow’s demands, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team now assigns a 75% probability to a Russian invasion of its neighbor. Matt Gertken, the team’s Chief Strategist, sees only a 10% chance that Russia will aim to conquer the whole of Ukraine. European markets are vulnerable to a Russian retaliation, and so we recommend hedging exposure to Europe and cyclical assets until the situation clears up. The euro remains at risk as long as tensions fester. Who Is Most Vulnerable To A Russian Energy Embargo? Bottom Line: Buy hedges such as short EUR/JPY and short EUR/CHF to protect portfolios against the risk of a conflict in Ukraine. The euro has more downside from here. Feature Handicapping The Risk Of War On Wednesday, after weeks of tense discussions, the US sent back its formal written response to Russia’s demands. Upon analysis of the situation, our geopolitical team concluded that the Biden administration offered no significant concessions. The US will not stop providing weapons to Ukraine, which, from Russia’s perspective, implies that its largest occidental neighbor could become “Russia’s Taiwan, i.e. a foreign-backed military enemy on its door step.”  Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team’s Chief Strategist, believes that the probability of a diplomatic solution has fallen to 25%, despite the joint statement made by Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany on January 26, which reaffirms the ceasefire in the Donbass region of Ukraine. Any minor violation of the ceasefire’s terms by Ukraine will create an excuse for a Russian invasion. The nature of the eventual conflict will be crucial to the economic and market outlook for Europe. Matt argues that Europeans are hamstrung by their large dependence on Russian energy. Even switching to US LNG in case of a crisis this winter will not fill the full gap and cause major economic distress in Europe. As a result, European governments will try to avoid a war in order to limit sanctions so that Russia does not cut energy supply further. However, Europeans are also allied with the US, which will push for sanctions and which is not as afraid of the consequences of a conflict. Faced with this dichotomy, Matt argues that the most likely outcome is that Russia will ultimately concentrate on the Eastern Ukraine. He observes that “Russia, if waging war, will prefer to receive revenues from Europe, as long as Europe is still buying. Thus, Russia will keep its military aims limited so that Germany and other countries have a basis for watering down sanctions to keep the energy flowing and avoid a recession.” In terms of the breakdown of probabilities, he sees a 65% probability of a short conflict whereby the battle is to control Eastern Ukraine, a 10% probability of a Russian effort to conquer the entire country, and a 25% probability of a diplomatic solution. According to Matt, it is too soon to buy the dip. Even if the situation on the ground matches our base case scenario of a limited conflict, Russia will employ a shock-and-awe strategy, creating the first major conflict on European soil since World War II. This will surprise investors and cause a knee-jerk spike in European energy prices. It will produce downside in the euro and in the relative performance of European equities, especially as it could take a few weeks before it becomes clear whether Russian troops will permanently cross the Dnieper. Bottom Line: European markets should brace for some volatility caused by Ukrainian events in the coming weeks. BCA’s geopolitical strategy team assigns only a 25% probability to a diplomatic resolution to the current tensions, a 65% probability to a limited Russian incursion in Ukraine, and a 10% chance of a war for the entire Ukrainian nation. Economic Risks Chart 1A Large Energy Shock For A Recession The economic implications of our base case scenario – a limited conflict – are restricted. As we showed three months ago, energy consumption only represents roughly 2% of European GDP. It would require a durable shock associated with a drawn-out conflict – the 10% probability scenario – to push up this ratio to the levels reached before the GFC, when energy prices were squeezing Europe (Chart 1). Nonetheless, markets will price in this probability as the conflict starts. Thus, understanding which economy is more vulnerable will help assess the risks to the market. The first metric to gauge vulnerability is the role of fossil fuels in the energy mix of European countries. In the event that a conflict causes an increase in energy prices, countries that rely more heavily on fossil fuel will experience a greater shock. On this front, pre-pandemic data from Eurostat shows that the Netherlands, Ireland, Poland, Greece, and Germany are the most exposed nations (Chart 2). By contrast, Sweden, Finland, France, and Denmark are the least exposed as a result of the role of nuclear or wind power generation in these countries. Chart 2Who depends Most On Fossil Fuel? Another metric is the share of a nation’s energy needs fulfilled by imports (Chart 3). On this score, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Portugal are the most vulnerable nations, whereas Sweden, the UK, Denmark, and Czechia are the least at risk. Chart 3Who Depends Most On Imported Energy? We can also concentrate on the impact of the risk of a Russian embargo on energy shipments to Western Europe. Chart 4 shows that, when it comes to crude oil, Finland, Poland, Hungary, and, to a lesser extent, Czechia are most vulnerable, whereas Austria, Spain, and Ireland are the least at risk. With respect to natural gas, which is crucial to electricity generation, Czechia, Finland, and Hungary are the three most vulnerable countries, whereas Sweden, Austria, Ireland, and Denmark are not (Chart 5). Chart 4Who Depends Most On Russian Oil? Chart 5Who Depends Most On Russian Natural Gas? We may also combine all these measures and approximate the share of the total energy needs of European countries fulfilled by Russia. Our Vulnerability Index shows that the most exposed nation is by far Hungary, followed by Poland, Germany, Czechia, and Italy (Chart 6). This ranking helps explain why the German government’s support for Ukraine remains somewhat tepid, and why Italian businessmen still held a video call with Russian president Vladimir Putin as recently as last Wednesday. Chart 6Who Is Most Vulnerable To A Russian Energy Embargo? Bottom Line: Hungary, Poland, Germany, Czechia, and Italy are the European nations most exposed to an energy crisis in the event of a drawn-out, all-out war in Ukraine, whereas Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK are the least exposed. This scenario carries only a 10% probability, but understanding its impact is important, since investors will have to adjust their expectations once a conflict begins in the Ukraine. The ECB Response The ECB response to a Ukrainian conflict will depend on the nature of the war. In our base case scenario involving a limited assault focused on Eastern Ukraine, the ECB will look at any energy shock and its impact on inflation as temporary. European wage gains remain limited (Chart 7), and the Governing Council will assume that any spike in energy prices will not last long enough to dislodge European inflation expectations. This picture will be very different if Russia tries to conquer Western Ukraine as well. While the potential energy embargo will most likely cause a European recession, it will also risk pushing up inflation expectations permanently. Because expectations are already close to the ECB’s objective (Chart 8), the ECB will respond by tightening policy, which many members of the GC will want. This action is likely to accentuate any recessionary pressures in Europe. Again, we cannot stress enough that this constitutes a tail risk and is not our base case scenario. Chart 7European Wage Growth Remains Tame Chart 8Inflation Expectations Could Become Unmoored Market Implications The Euro Three weeks ago, we wrote that the euro was not ready to bottom because the risks associated with a slowing Chinese economy, the continued economic impact of Omicron, and the volatility of the natural gas market were still too considerable. Chart 9Another Wave Of Euro Selling This is even more true after last week’s Fed press conference, when FOMC Chair Jerome Powell did not contest the aggressive market pricing in the OIS curve. As a result, the window remains open in the near-term for interest rate differentials to move in a euro-bearish fashion (Chart 9). Ukraine adds another near-term threat to the euro. First, the run-up to an invasion, whether total or partial, will create a risk-off wave in global markets. Geopolitically driven sell-offs are most often associated with a rise in the counter-cyclical dollar, which is euro-bearish. The Swiss franc too would benefit against the euro. Moreover, Europe is much more exposed than the US to the economic consequences of a Ukrainian crisis. Obviously, our base case scenario implies a shorter and shallower sell-off than what would happen if Russia tried to conquer the whole of Ukraine. Nonetheless, a move below EUR/USD 1.10 now carries a greater than 40% probability. Bunds In our base case scenario of a limited Russian incursion in Ukraine, we should see a temporary dip in German yields driven by risk aversion. However, larger economic forces continue to point toward higher yields around the world, including in Germany. In our tail risk scenario, the German yield curve is likely to invert. ECB rate hikes will not be enough to push up 10-year yields, as markets will reflect that these increases will be temporary because of the associated recession. Instead, German 10-year yields will regress toward their 2021 lows of -0.55%. Equities Chart 10European Stocks Are Now Cheap Since mid-December, European equities have been outperforming US equities on the back of rising yields. We expect European shares to continue to outperform US stocks over the remainder of the year. As we wrote two weeks ago, European stocks possess a more generous valuation cushion against higher yields than their US counterparts, especially now that forward multiples have fallen back to 15.4, their lowest levels since May 2020 (Chart 10). Moreover, the greater cyclicality of European stocks means that they will benefit from an eventual stabilization of the Chinese economy by the latter half of 2022. They also stand to gain from a gradual normalization of the terminal rate proxy over the coming years, which often coincides with an outperformance of value stocks over growth names. Despite this positive outlook, the Ukrainian crisis poses a considerable near-term risk, even in the base case scenario of a limited Russian military aim. The wave of risk aversion will hurt the euro, which arithmetically will weigh on the relative performance of European stocks in common currency terms. Moreover, the more pro-cyclical profile of European stocks will accentuate their vulnerability in a geopolitical crisis. However, the temporary nature of the risk-off wave means that the woes suffered by Europe will also be transitory. Under the tail risk scenario, European equities will not be capable of outperforming those of the US for many months because of the high recession risk that will engulf the region. High energy prices will destroy the profit margins of European companies, which will already suffer from a hit to their top line-growth. US equities will suffer too, but significantly less so. Chart 11European Cyclicals Are Exposed To A Crisis In Ukraine Sector wise, a Ukrainian crisis will also short circuit the outperformance of European cyclicals over defensive equities. For now, European cyclicals have managed to generate alpha, despite the market correction (Chart 11), but the risk of a recession will affect this trend. Under our base case scenario, the underperformance will be short-lived, even if it proves severe; however, under the tail risk scenario, the cyclicals-to-defensives ratio will plunge toward the bottom of its historical range. Within defensive sectors, utilities will likely underperform, especially if the tail risk scenario comes to fruition. European governments will not allow utilities to pass on the full increase in natural gas prices to consumers, which will create a major compression in utilities’ profit margins. For cyclical names, consumer discretionary will bear the brunt of any sell-off. They are relatively pricey and the combination of the potential shock to household disposable income and rising risk aversion will prove to be lethal. The sales and profit margins of industrials will be under stress. However, this shock will be transitory if the Ukrainian crisis remains contained in our base-case scenario. Chart 12The Russian Exposure Of European Banks Financials carry their own risk in the context of a drawn-out Ukrainian crisis. European banks have exposure to Russia equal to $106 billion, concentrated in France and Switzerland (Chart 12). In and of itself, this is small. However, if European nations impose large enough sanctions on Russia, not only will that country cut its energy shipments to Western Europe, but Russian firms will also likely default on their foreign obligations, emboldened by Russia’s robust FX reserves and balance of payments. In the context of a recession wherein the ECB also hikes rates, these defaults will add considerable stress to the European banking sector. Thus, under our tail risk scenario, financials could perform particularly poorly. In terms of the implications for countries, Germany is the most exposed of all the major European markets to a Ukrainian crisis because of its high energy dependence on Russia and fossil fuels. The recent underperformance of German equities when we correct for sectoral bias probably already reflects the recent rise in electricity costs in the country, which hurt German firms versus their European competitors (Chart 13). While we like the fundamentals of European small-cap stocks, we have remained on the sidelines because of the strong correlation between their relative performance and the trade-weighted euro (Chart 14). The risks surrounding Ukraine and their implications for both the euro and the European economy suggest it is still too dangerous to pull the trigger and overweight small-cap in Europe. However, if our base case scenario of a limited conflict comes true, then this will create the perfect opportunity to move into the European small-cap space. Chart 13German Suffers A Nat Gas Discount Chart 14Small-Caps Need A Euro Bottom Investment Implications Considering the probability distribution laid out by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team, whose base case scenario is a limited Russian incursion into Ukraine, we do not expect NATO countries to impose sanctions severe enough to force Russia to cut Western Europe’s energy supply. Nonetheless, the prospect of the most significant military conflict on European soil since World War II will have a significant impact on European asset prices, even if this effect is transitory. As a result, we still maintain our preference for cyclical equities in Europe and still expect European equities to outperform US stocks over the course of 2022. We also continue to anticipate that European stocks will outperform Bunds in 2022. Nonetheless, ahead of the conflict, we recommend investors buy some hedges, such as short EUR/CHF and EUR/JPY to protect against downside risk. Rapidly after the conflict begins, an opportunity to close those hedges will emerge. With respect to the euro, the combined stress from a hawkish Fed and Ukrainian risks means we will stay on the sidelines after having been stopped out of our long EUR/USD trade. If our base case of a limited conflict does come to fruition and Russia instead initiates a full invasion of Ukraine, we will shift our portfolio to a fully defensive stance. The euro could re-test parity or even drop below it.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance

HighlightsUpgrade odds of Russia invading Ukraine from 50% to 75%. The US and allies are transferring arms to Ukraine while seeking alternate energy supply for Europe.Of the 75% war risk, we give 10% odds to Russia conquering all of Ukraine, as discussed in our “Five Black Swans For 2022.” Russia’s limited war aims worked in 2014 and President Putin tends to take calculated military risks. Full-scale invasion would force the West to unify.The remaining 25% goes to diplomatic resolution. It appears that the US is not offering Russia sufficient security guarantees. Ukrainian leaders do not have a domestic mandate to surrender and have not done so for eight years. Russia cannot accept the  status quo now that it has made armed demands for big change.Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producing states have geopolitical leverage – is vividly on display.Tactically stay defensive. But cyclically stay invested. Book 10% gain on long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Book a 8.6% gain on long CAD-RUB.FeatureUkraine’s economy is small but investors rightly worry that an expansion of the still simmering 2014 war there will cause Europe’s energy supply to tighten, pushing up prices and dragging on European demand. Russia would cut off natural gas to Ukraine, which would cut off 6.6% of Europe’s natural gas imports, 18% of Germany’s, 77% of Hungary’s, and 38% of Italy’s (Chart 1). Chart 1Ukraine Hinges On Germany If Europe retaliates against Russia with crippling sanctions, Russia and Belarus could conceivably cut off another 20% of Europe’s imports and 60% of Germany’s imports. The Czech Republic, Finland, and Hungary get almost 100% of their natural gas from Ukraine and Russia, while Finland, Poland, and Hungary get more than half of their oil from Russia. In other words, Europe will try to avoid war and try to limit sanctions so that Russia does not further reduce supply.Yet Russia, if waging war, will prefer to receive revenues from Europe, as long as Europe is still buying. Thus Russia will keep its military aims limited so that Germany and other countries have a basis for watering down sanctions to keep the energy flowing and avoid a recession. The US has already committed to sweeping sanctions against Russia and is much more likely to follow through (though President Biden also wants to avoid an energy shock ahead of midterm elections).Energy consumption amounts to only 2% of European GDP, though it could rise to 5% in the event of a shock, as our European Investment Strategist Mathieu Savary has shown. This number would not be far from the 7% reached in 2008, which coincided with financial crisis and recession. All of Europe will suffer from high prices, not only those that import via Ukraine, and Europe’s supply squeeze would push up global prices as well. So the risk of a recession in Europe will rise if the energy squeeze worsens, even if a recession is ultimately avoided.Whatever Russia ends up doing with its military, it may start off with shock and awe. Europe might see its first major war since World War II. Global investors will react very negatively, at least until they can be assured that the conflict will remain contained in Ukraine. According to our market-based quantitative indicators of Russian geopolitical risk, there is still complacency – the ruble has not fallen as far as one would expect based on key macro variables (Chart 2). Chart 2Russia Geopolitical Risk: Two Quantitative Indicators  Chart 3Russian Market Reaction Amid Ukraine Crisis Investors will sell European – especially eastern European – equities and currencies even more rapidly if a war breaks out (Chart 3). It is too soon to buy the dip. What is needed is a Russian decision and then clarity on the scope of the western reaction. Even then, developed Europe and non-European emerging markets will be more attractive.Looking at global equities: How did the market respond to previous Russian invasions?Few conclusions can be drawn from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, given Georgia’s lack of systemic importance and the simultaneous global financial crisis (Chart 4). Stocks underperformed bonds and cyclicals underperformed defensives, but value caught a bid relative to growth.Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 occurred in a different macroeconomic context but saw stocks flat relative to bonds, cyclicals fall relative to defensives (except energy stocks), and small caps roll over relative to large caps (Chart 5). Value stocks, however, outperformed growth stocks. Chart 4Market Reaction To Russian Invasion Of Georgia​​​​​  Chart 5Market Reaction To Russian Invasion Of Crimea​​​​​  Chart 6Ukraine Crisis And Energy: 2022 Versus 2014 However, in today’s context, these cyclical trends are looking stretched, so a temporary pullback from these trends should be expected. Value stocks, especially energy stocks, have skyrocketed relative to growth and defensives and are likely to pull back in a global risk-off move (Chart 6). Tactically we recommend American over European assets, defensives over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and safe-haven assets like gold and the Japanese yen.Washington Offers “No Change” To MoscowWhy is a diplomatic solution less likely than before?The US offered no concessions to Russia in its formal written response to Russia’s demands on January 26. “No change, and there will be no change” in longstanding policies, according to Secretary of State Antony Blinken.1 The relevant policies are not about NATO membership – Ukraine is never going to join NATO – but rather about the US and NATO making Ukraine a de facto member by providing arms and defense cooperation. Russia obviously sees a US-armed Ukraine as a threat to its national security.One of the few realistic demands of Russia’s – that the US and NATO stop providing arms – has been flung back in Russia’s face. Blinken pointed out in his press conference that the US has given more defense aid to Ukraine in the past year than in any previous year. He said the US will continue to provide arms while pursuing diplomacy, including five MI-17 helicopters on the way. He also noted that the US has authorized allies to transfer American-origin arms to Ukraine.2The importance of the defense cooperation is not the quality of the arms being transferred (so far) but the long-term potential for the US to turn Ukraine into Russia’s Taiwan, i.e. a foreign-backed military enemy on its doorstep. The costs of inaction today could be checkmate from Russia’s long-term strategic point of view. Russia has warned for 14 years that it saw Ukraine as a red line and yet the US and NATO have increased defense cooperation. It is a moot point whether the US provides arms because it does not empathize with Russia’s security interests or because it believes Russia will attack Ukraine regardless.A diplomatic solution could still come from the US, if more information comes to light, or from Ukraine itself, under French and German pressure. Ukraine could make promises to respect Russia’s national security interests and implement the Minsk Protocols it was forced into after Russia seized Crimea in 2014.3If Ukraine surrenders, Russia can claim victory and reduce the threat of war, at least temporarily. But it would not eliminate the long-term risk of war since Ukraine’s government may not be willing or able to implement any such agreement. Ukraine views the Minsk agreement as a Russian imposition and it has rejected key parts of it (such as federalization and granting rights and privileges to Russian separatists in Donbass) for eight years already.4The joint statement from Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany on January 26 reaffirms the ceasefire in the Donbass.5 It is unlikely that Russia can walk away with this ceasefire alone, having made fundamental demands regarding Russia’s long-term security and the European order. It is more likely that any Ukrainian violation of the ceasefire will now offer a pretext for Russia to respond with military force.Russia’s military advantage is immediate whereas diplomatic attempts by Ukraine to buy time could help it stage a more formidable defense against Russia in future, given ongoing US and NATO defense cooperation. This is why the continuation of arms transfers is the signal. Russia is incentivized to take action sooner rather than later now that the western willingness and urgency to provide arms has increased.Putin has succeeded with his “small war” and “hybrid war” strategy thus far. Russian forex and gold reserves at $630 billion (38% of GDP), gradual diversification away from the dollar (16% of forex reserves), low short-term external debt (5% of GDP), an alternative bank communication system, a special economic relationship with China, a Eurasian Economic Union that can help circumvent sanctions, all provide Russia with some buffer against US sanctions.GeoRisk Indicators: Europe Chart 7European GeoRisk Indicator Amid Ukraine Crisis In our Q3 2021 outlook, we argued that European political risk had bottomed due to Russia. Our geopolitical risk indicators show that financial markets tend to price European political risks in line with the USD-EUR exchange rate. The dollar rallied in 2021 and has since fallen back but a war and energy squeeze in Europe should help the dollar stay resilient, as should Federal Reserve rate hikes (Chart 7).If Russia attacks, the Ukrainians will fall back and then mount an insurgency. This will make the war more difficult than its planners initially believe. It will also raise the risk that war will spill over. Neighbors that provide economic aid – not to mention military aid – will eventually make themselves vulnerable to Russian attack, either to destroy commerce or cut insurgency supply lines.NATO will fortify its borders with troops but then tensions will grow on those borders, reducing security and raising uncertainty in the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. Ukraine could become a war zone like Libya or Syria except that this time the US and Russia would truly be fighting a proxy war against each other.Other European Risks Pale In ComparisonWe will monitor the French election in case the Ukraine conflict causes dynamics to shift against President Emmanuel Macron. Most likely Macron’s diplomatic flourishes, combined with France’s insulation from Russia and Ukraine, will benefit him at the ballot box.In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces a leadership challenge. He will probably survive but the Conservative Party faces a serious challenge over the coming years. Labour’s comeback will build ahead of the next election, given that the pandemic has dealt a powerful blow against the Tories, who have been in power since 2010 and are therefore becoming stale. Labour has gotten over the Jeremy Corbyn problem.What matters is whether the UK rejoins the EU, whether Scotland leaves the UK, and whether the next government has a strong majority with which to lead. So far there have not been major changes on these issues:The Tories still have a 75-seat majority through 2024.Support for Scottish independence is stuck at 45% where it has been since 2014.Polling is still evenly divided on Brexit. Labour taking power is a prerequisite to any reunion with the EU, Labour does not want to campaign on re-opening the Brexit issue. While Labour will want to run against inflation, and win back the middle class, rather than for the EU.Thus political risk will be flat, not returning to Brexit highs anytime soon, which is marginally good news for pound sterling over a cyclical horizon (Chart 8). Chart 8UK GeoRisk Indicator And Boris Johnson's Troubles India Enters Populist Phase Of Election Cycle2022 will mark the beginning of India’s election season in full earnest, even though general elections are not due until 2024. This is because within the five-year election cycle spanning from 2019-2024, this year will see elections in some of India’s largest states (Chart 9).More importantly 2022 will see elections take place in most of India’s northern region (Chart 10), which is a key constituency for the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Chart 9India: Major State Elections This Year​​​​​  Chart 10North India In Focus With State Elections​​​​​ Of all the state elections due this year, the most critical will be those in Uttar Pradesh, where voting will begin on February 10, 2022. Final results will be declared a month later on March 10, 2022.Uttar Pradesh Will Disappoint BJPAt the last state elections held in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, BJP stormed into power with one of the strongest mandates ever seen in this sprawling and heterogenous state. The BJP boosted its seat share to an extraordinary 77%, leaving competitors far behind (Chart 11). Chart 11Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) Stormed Into Power In Uttar Pradesh (UP) In 2017 Cut to 2022, the BJP appears likely to cross the 50% majority threshold but will cede seat share to a regional party called the Samajwadi Party (SP).What will drive this reduction in seats? The reduction will be driven by a degree of anti-incumbency sentiment and some adverse socio-political arithmetic. In a state where voting is still driven to a large extent by identity politics, it is worth recalling that the BJP was able to win the 2017 elections by pulling votes from three distinct communities:BJP’s core constituency of upper caste Hindus.A subset of Other Backward Classes (OBCs).A subset of a community belonging historically to one of the lowest social levels in India called Dalits.This winning formula of 2017 may not work in 2022 as the BJP faces resentment from parts of each of these three communities as well as from farmers (who were against farm law reforms that the BJP tried to pass).There is a chance that these groups may flock to the regional Samajwadi Party in 2022. The latter is in a position of strength as it is expected to retain support from its core constituency of Muslims and upper-caste OBCs too.Yet the risk is to the downside for the ruling party. Modi and the BJP have suffered a hit to their popular support from the global pandemic and recession, like other world leaders.Reading The Tea Leaves For 2024The pro-Modi wave that began in 2014, and gained steam in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, became a tsunami by 2019, causing the BJP to win a decisive 56% of seats in the national assembly. So, if the BJP loses seats in Uttar Pradesh this year, what will be the implications for the general elections of 2024?In a base case scenario, the Modi-led BJP appears set to emerge as the single largest party in the 2024 elections (albeit with a lower seat share than the 62 of 80 seats that the BJP managed in 2019). As the BJP administration ages, it is expected to lose a degree of seat share in its core constituency of north India. But these losses should be partially offset by gains in regions like east India where the BJP continues to make inroads. Also, national parties tend to attract higher vote share at general elections as compared to state elections, and this is true for the BJP. Most likely the pandemic will have fallen away by 2024 and the economy will be expanding.However, a lot can change in two years, and a major disappointment at Uttar Pradesh would sound alarm bells. By 2024, the BJP will have been in power for ten years. So it is not a foregone conclusion that the BJP will win a single-party majority for a third time, even if it does remain the biggest party.Regional parties like the Samajwadi Party (from Uttar Pradesh), Trinamool Congress (from West Bengal), Shiv Sena (from Maharashtra) and Aam Aadmi Party (from New Delhi) are small but rising and may incrementally eat into the BJP’s national seat share.Policy Implications For 2022 Chart 12India’s Fiscal Report Card May Worsen With Populism India’s central government will unveil its budget for FY23 on Feb 1, 2022 in the Indian parliament. We expect the government to announce a fiscal deficit of 6.6% of GDP which will be marginally lower than the FY22 target of 6.8% of GDP. However, with key elections around the corner, we allocate a high probability to the government announcing a big-bang pro-farmer or pro-poor scheme from this pulpit. This high focus on populism and inadequate focus on capital expenditure could lead markets to question India’s fiscal well-being at a time when its debt levels are high (Chart 12).Distinct from policy risks in the short run, geopolitical risks confronting India are elevated too. India’s relationship with China continues to fester. Sino-Indian frictions could easily take a turn for the worst in 2022 as India enters the business end of its five-year election cycle on one hand and China’s all-important 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (NCCCP) is due in the fall of 2022. China could take advantage of US distraction in Ukraine to flex its muscles in Asia. A geopolitical showdown with China would likely only cause a temporary drop in Indian equities, but taken with other factors, now is not the time to buy.Bottom Line: We remain positive on India on a strategic horizon. However, in view of India approaching the business-end of its five-year election cycle, when policy risks tend to become elevated, we reiterate our tactical sell on India.GeoRisk Indicators: Rest Of WorldNeutral China: China’s performance relative to emerging markets may be starting to bottom but we do not recommend buying it. Domestic political risk is still rising according to our indicator and we expect it to keep rising (Chart 13). Negative political surprises will occur in the lead up to the twentieth national party congress and the March 2023 implementation of the “Common Prosperity” plan. Any Russian conflict will distract the US and enable General Secretary Xi Jinping to cement his second ten-year term in office – and China’s reversion to autocracy – with minimal foreign opposition. The US’s conflict with China is one reason Russia believes it has a window of opportunity. Chart 13CHINA GEORISK INDICATOR Short Taiwan: Taiwan’s geopolitical risk has paused far short of previous peaks as the country’s currency and stock market benefit from the ongoing semiconductor shortage. But a peak may be starting to form in relative equity performance (Chart 14). We doubt that China will see any Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022 as an opportunity to invade Taiwan, although economic sanctions and cyber-attacks are an option that we fully anticipate. Invading Taiwan is far more difficult militarily than invading Ukraine and China is less ready than Russia for such an operation. However, China might be able to exploit a Russian attack as soon as 2024. Chart 14TAIWAN TERRITORY GEORISK INDICATOR Long South Korea: South Korea’s presidential election is approaching on March 9 and this event combined with North Korea’s new cycle of missile provocations will keep political risk elevated (Chart 15). The conservative People Power party has pulled ahead in opinion polling and the incumbent Democratic Party has been weakened by the pandemic. But the race is still fairly tight and a viable third party candidate could make a comeback. China’s policy easing should eventually benefit South Korea. Chart 15SOUTH KOREA GEORISK INDICATOR Long Australia: Australia’s federal election must be held by May 21 and anti-incumbency feeling has taken hold, with the Liberal-National coalition collapsing in opinion polls relative to the Australian Labor Party. Australia still faces shockwaves from the pandemic and China’s secular slowdown, reversion to autocracy, and conflict with the US, especially if the US gets distracted in Europe. Political risk is high and rising (Chart 16). However, Australia benefits from rising commodity prices and we favor developed markets outside the United States. Chart 16AUSTRALIA GEORISK INDICATOR Long Canada: Canada’s recapitalized its political system with last year’s general election and political risk is subsiding (Chart 17). Canada benefits from rising oil and commodity prices and close proximity to the hyper-stimulated US economy. Chart 17CANADA GEORISK INDICATOR Neutral Turkey: Turkey is one of our perennial candidates for a “black swan” event as the country’s political stability continues to suffer under strongman rule, unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy, military adventures in North Africa and Syria, and now a Russian bid to dominate the Black Sea. Elections looming in 2023 will provoke turmoil as the Erdogan administration is extremely vulnerable and yet has many ways to try to cling to power (Chart 18). Chart 18TURKEY GEORISK INDICATOR Neutral Brazil: Brazilian political risk is subsiding as the market expects former President Lula da Silva to return to power in this October’s presidential election and replace current populist President Jair Bolsonaro. Relative equity performance always appears as if it has bottomed only to inch lower in the next selloff. China’s policy easing is a boon for Brazil but China is not providing massive stimulus, the election will be tumultuous, and even a Lula victory will need to see a market riot to ensure that structural reforms are pursued (Chart 19). Chart 19BRAZIL GEORISK INDICATOR Long South Africa: South Africa still faces elevated political risk despite the conclusion of the 2021 municipal elections. However, the ruling African National Congress, which is pursuing an anti-corruption drive, is likely to stay in power, lending policy continuity. Equities have bottomed and are rebounding relative to emerging markets (Chart 20). The danger is that structural reforms will slip ahead of the spring 2024 election. Chart 20SOUTH AFRICA GEORISK INDICATOR Investment TakeawaysTactically stay long gold, defensives over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, Japanese industrials versus German, GBP-CZK, and JPY-KRW.Book a 10% gain on long DM Europe / short EM Europe. Book a 8.6% gain on long CAD-RUB.   Matt Gertken Vice PresidentGeopolitical Strategymattg@bcaresearch.com Ritika Mankar, CFAEditor/Strategistritika.mankar@bcaresearch.comFootnotes1      For Blinken’s press conference on the US formal response to Russia, see US Department of State, "Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability," January 26, 2022, state.gov.2     For Ukraine’s criticism that Germany should offer pillows in addition to helmets, see Humeyra Pamuk and Dmitry Antonov, "U.S. responds to Russia security demands as Ukraine tensions mount," Reuters, January 26, 2022, reuters.com. For the US’s $2.5 billion in defense aid to Ukraine since 2014, see Elias Yousif, "U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine," January 26, 2022, stimson.org. For purpose and significance, see Samuel Charap and Scott Boston, "U.S. Military Aid to Ukraine: A Silver Bullet?" Rand Blog, rand.org.3     Michael Kofman, "Putin’s Wager in Russia’s Standoff with the West," War on the Rocks, January 24, 2022, warontherocks.com.4     In 2021 the US apparently moved to embrace the Minsk Protocols for the first time, but since then it has not joined the talks. See National Security Adviser Jack Sullivan, "White House Daily Briefing," December 7, 2021, c-span.org. 5             Élysée, "Declaration of the advisors to the N4 Heads of States and Governments," January 26, 2022, elysee.fr. See also "Russia, Ukraine agree to uphold cease-fire in Normandy talks," DW, January 26, 2022, dw.com.Geopolitical CalendarStrategic ThemesOpen Tactical Positions (0-6 Months)Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Highlights Our top five “black swan” risks for 2022: Social unrest in China; Russian invasion of all of Ukraine; unilateral Israeli strikes on Iran; a cyber attack that goes kinetic; and a failure of OPEC 2.0. Too early to buy the dip on Russian assets: President Biden says Putin will probably “move in” and re-invade Ukraine, Russian embassy staff have been evacuating Ukraine, the US and UK have been providing more arms to Ukraine, and the US is warning of a semiconductor embargo against Russia. Talks resume in Geneva on Friday. Tactically investors should take some risk off the table, especially if linked to Russia and Europe.  Stay short the Russian ruble and EM Europe; stay short the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar; stay long cyber security stocks; and be prepared for oil volatility. Convert tactical long equity trades to relative trades: long large caps versus small caps, long defensives versus cyclicals, and long Japanese industrials versus German industrials. Feature Chart 1Recession Probability And Yield Curve The 2/10-year yield curve is flattening and now stands at 79 bps, while the implied probability of a recession over the next 12 months troughed at 5.9% in April 2021, and as of December 2021 stood at 7.7% (Chart 1). Apparently stagflation and recession are too high of a probability to constitute a “black swan” risk for this year. Black swans are not only high impact but also low probability. In this year’s annual “Five Black Swan” report, the last of our 2022 outlook series, we concentrate on impactful but unlikely events. These black swans emerge directly from the existing themes and trends in our research – they are not plucked at random. The key regions are highlighted in Map 1. Black Swan #1: Major Social Unrest Erupts In China China’s financial problems are front and center risks for investors this year. They qualify as a “Gray Rhino” rather than “Black Swan” risk.1 It is entirely probable that China’s financial and property sector distress will negatively impact Chinese and global financial markets in 2022. What investors are not expecting is an eruption of social unrest in China that fouls up the twentieth national party congress this fall and calls into question the Communist Party’s official narrative that it is handling the pandemic and the underlying economic transition smoothly. Social unrest is a major risk around the world in the face of the new bout of inflation. Most of the democracies have already changed governments since the pandemic began, recapitalizing their political systems, but major emerging markets – Russia, India, Turkey, Brazil – have not done so. They have seen steep losses of popular support for both political leaders and ruling parties. There is little opinion polling from China and people who are surveyed cannot speak openly. It is possible that the government’s support has risen given its minimization of deaths from the pandemic. But it is also possible that it has not. Beijing’s policies over the past few years have had a negative impact on the country’s business elite and foreign relations. There are disgruntled factions within China, though the current administration has a tight grip over the main organs of power. Since President Xi is trying to clinch his personal rule this fall, sending China down a path of autocracy that proved disastrous under Chairman Mao Zedong, it is possible he will face surprise resistance. China’s economic growth is decelerating, clocking in at a 4.0% quarter-on-quarter growth rate at the end of last year. While authorities are easing policy to secure the recovery, there is a danger of insufficient support. Private sentiment will remain gloomy, as reflected by weak money velocity and a low propensity to spend among both businesses and households (Chart 2). The government will continue to be repressive in the lead up to the political reshuffle. At least for the first half of the year the economy will remain troubled. Structurally China is ripe for social unrest. It suffers from high income inequality and low social mobility, comparable to the US and Brazil, which are both struggling with political upheaval (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Private Sector Still Depressed​​​​​ ​​​​​​ In addition China is keeping a stranglehold over Covid-19. This “Zero Covid” policy minimizes deaths but suppresses economic activity. Strict policy has also left the population with a very low level of natural immunity and the new Omicron variant is even more contagious than other variants. Hence the regime is highly likely to double down to prevent an explosive outbreak. The service side of the economy will continue to suffer if strict lockdowns are maintained, exacerbating household and business financial difficulties (Chart 4). Yet in other countries around the world, government decisions to return to lockdowns have sparked unrest. Chart 4Zero Covid Policy: Not Sustainable Beyond 2022 China’s “Misery Index” (unemployment plus inflation) is rising sharply. While misery is ostensibly lower than that of other emerging markets, China’s unemployment data is widely known to be unreliable. If we take a worst-case scenario, looking at youth unemployment and fuel prices, misery is a lot higher (Chart 5). The youth, who are having the hardest time finding jobs, are also the most likely to protest if conditions become intolerable (Chart 6). Of course, if social unrest is limited to students, it will lack support among the wider populace. But it is inflation, not youth activism, that is the reason for China’s authorities to be concerned, as inflation is a generalized problem that affects workers as well as students. Chart 5China's Misery Index Is Higher Than It Looks​​​​​ Chart 6China's Troubled Youth Why would protesters stick their necks out knowing that the Communist Party will react ferociously to any sign of instability during President Xi Jinping’s political reshuffle? True, mainland Chinese do not have the propensity to political activism that flared up in protests in Hong Kong in recent years. Also the police state will move rapidly to repress any unrest. Yet the entire focus of Xi Jinping’s administration, since 2012, has been the restoration of political legitimacy and prevention of popular discontent. Xi has cracked down on corruption, pollution, housing prices, education prices, and has announced his “Common Prosperity” agenda to placate the low and middle classes.2 The regime has also cracked down on the media, social media, civil society, and ideological dissent to prevent political opposition from taking root. If the government were not concerned about social instability, it would not have been adopting these policies. Disease, often accompanied by famines or riots, has played a role in the downfall of six out of ten dynasties, so Beijing will not be taking risks for granted (Table 1). Table 1Disease And Downfall Of Chinese Dynasties Social instability would have a major impact as it would affect China’s stability and global investor sentiment toward China. Western democracies would penalize China for violations of human rights, leaving China even more isolated. Bottom Line: Investors should stay short the renminbi and neutral Chinese equities. Foreign investors should steer clear of Chinese bonds in the event of US sanctions. After the party congress this fall there will be an opportunity to reassess whether Xi Jinping will “let a hundred flowers bloom,” thus improving the internal and external political and investment environment, but this is not at all clear today. Black Swan #2: Russia Invades All (Not Just Part) Of Ukraine US-Russia relations are on the verge of total collapse and Russian equities have sold off, in line with our bearish recommendations in reports over the past two years. Russia’s threat of re-invading Ukraine is credible. Western nations are still wishy-washy about the counter-threat of economic sanctions, judging by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s latest comments, and none are claiming they will go to war to defend Ukraine.3 Russia is looking to remove the threat of Ukraine integrating militarily and economically with the West. The US and UK are providing Ukraine with defense weaponry even as Russia specifically demands that they cease to do so. President Putin may choose short-term economic pain for long-term security gain. The consensus view is that if Russia does invade, it will undertake a limited invasion. But what if Russia invades all of Ukraine? To be clear, a full invasion is unlikely because it would be far more difficult and costly for Russia. It would go against Putin’s strategy of calculated risk and limited conflict. Table 2 compares Russia and Ukraine in size and strength, alongside a comparison of the US and Iraq in 2002. This is not a bad comparison given that Ukraine’s and Iraq’s land area and active military personnel are comparable. Table 2Russia-Ukraine Balance Of Power 2022 Compared To US-Iraq 2002 Russia would be biting off a much bigger challenge than the US did. Ukraine’s prime age population is 2.5 times larger than Iraq’s in 2002, and its military expenditure is three times bigger. The US GDP and military spending were 150 and 250 times bigger than Iraq’s, while Russia’s GDP and military spending are about ten times bigger than Ukraine’s today. Iraq was not vital to American national security, whereas Ukraine is vital to Russia; Russia has more at stake and is willing to take greater risks. But Ukraine is in better shape to resist Russian occupation than Iraq was to resist American. The point is that the US invasion went smoothly at first, then got bogged down in insurgency, and ultimately backfired both in political and geopolitical terms. Russia would be undertaking a massive expense of blood and treasure that seems out of proportion with its goal, which is to neutralize Ukraine’s potential to become a western defense ally and host of “military infrastructure.” However, there are drawbacks to partial invasion. The remainder of the Ukrainian state would be unified and mobilized, capable of integrating with the western world, and willing to support a permanent insurgency against Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Russia has forces in Belarus, Crimea, and the Black Sea, as well as on Ukraine’s eastern border, giving rise to fears that Russia could attempt a three-pronged invasion of the whole country. In short, it is conceivable that Russian leaders could make the Soviet mistake of overreaching in the military aims, or that a war in eastern Ukraine could inadvertently expand into the west. If Russia tries to conquer all of Ukraine, the global impact will be massive. A war of this size on the European continent for the first time since World War II would shake governments and populations to their bones. The borders with Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Hungary, Finland and the Black Sea area would become militarized (Map 2). NATO actions to secure its members and fortify their borders would exacerbate tensions with Russia and fan fears of a wider war. Trade flows would become subject to commerce destruction, affecting even neutral nations, including in the Black Sea. Energy supplies would tighten further, sending Russia and probably Europe into recession. The disruption to business and travel across eastern Europe would be deep and lasting, not only due to sanctions but also due to a deep risk-aversion that would affect foreign investors in the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact. Germany would be forced to quit sitting on the fence, as it would be pressured by the US and the rest of Europe to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of such aggression. Finland and Sweden would be much more likely to join NATO, exacerbating Russia’s security fears. Russia would suffer a drastic loss of trade, resulting in recession, and its currency collapse would feed inflation (Chart 7). Chart 7Inflation Poses Long-Term Threat To Putin Regime Ultimately the consequences would be negative for the Putin regime and Russia as a result of recession and international isolation. But in the short run the Russian people would rally around the flag and support a war designed to prevent NATO from stationing missiles on their doorstep. And their isolation would not be total, as they would strengthen ties with China and conduct trade via proxy states in the former Soviet Union. Bottom Line: A full-scale invasion of all of Ukraine is highly unlikely because it would be so costly for Russia in military, economic, and political terms. But the probability is not zero, especially because a partial re-invasion could lead to a larger war. While global investors would react in a moderate risk-off matter to a limited war in eastern Ukraine, a full-scale war would trigger a massive global flight to safety as it would call into question the entire post-WWII peace regime in Europe. Black Swan #3: Israel Attacks Iran The “bull market in Iran tensions” continues as there is not yet a replacement for the 2015 nuclear deal that the US abrogated. Our 2022 forecast that the UAE would get caught in the crossfire was confirmed on January 17 when Iran-backed Houthi rebels expanded their range of operations and struck Abu Dhabi (Map 3). The secret war is escalating and US-led diplomacy is faltering. Iran is not going to give up its nuclear program. North Korea achieved nuclear arms and greater military security and is now developing first and second strike capabilities. Meanwhile Ukraine, which faces another Russian invasion, exemplifies what happens to regimes that give up nuclear arms (as do Libya and Iraq). Iran appears to be choosing the North Korean route. While we cannot rule out a minor agreement between President Biden and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, we can rule out a substantial deal that halts Iran’s nuclear and missile progress. Here’s why: Any day now Iran could reach nuclear “breakout capacity,” with enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Table 3).4 Table 3Iran’s Violations Of 2015 Nuclear Deal Since US Exit Within Iran’s government, the foreign policy doves have been humiliated and kicked out of office while the hawks are fully in control. No meaningful agreement can be reached before 2024 because of the risk that the US will change ruling parties again and renege on any promises. Iran is highly incentivized to make rapid progress on its nuclear program now. The US will not be able to lead the P5+1 coalition to force Iran to halt its program because of its ongoing struggles with Russia and China. China is striking long-term cooperation deals with Iran. Israel has a well-established record of taking unilateral action, specifically against regional nuclear programs, known as the “Begin Doctrine.”5 Israel’s threats are credible on this front, although Iran is a much greater operational challenge than Iraq or Syria. Iran’s timeline from nuclear breakout to deliverable nuclear weapon is 12-24 months.6 Iran’s missile program is advanced. Missile programs cannot be monitored as easily as nuclear activity, so foreign powers base the threshold on nuclear capability rather than missile capability. Iran had a strong incentive to move slowly on its nuclear and missile programs in earlier years, to prevent US and Israeli military interference. But as it approaches breakout capacity it has an incentive to accelerate its tempo to a mad dash to achieve nuclear weaponization before the US or Israel can stop it. Now that time may have come. The Biden administration is afraid of higher oil prices and Israeli domestic politics are more divided and risk-averse than before. And yet Iran’s window might close in 2025, as the US could turn aggressive again depending on the outcome of the 2024 election. Hence Iran has an incentive to make its dash now. The US and Israel will restate their red lines against Iranian nuclear weaponization and brandish their military options this year. But the Biden administration will be risk-averse since it does not want to instigate an oil shock in an election year. Israel is more likely than the US to react quickly and forcefully since it is in greatest danger if Iran surprises the world with rapid weaponization. Here are the known constraints on unilateral Israeli military action: Limited Israeli military capability: Israel would have to commit a large number of aircraft, leaving its home front exposed, and even with US “bunker buster” bombs it may not penetrate the underground Fordow nuclear facility.7 Limited Israeli domestic support: The Israeli public is divided on whether to attack Iran. The post-Netanyahu government recently came around to endorsing the US’s attempt to renegotiate the nuclear deal. Limited US support: Washington opposes Israeli unilateralism that could entangle the US into a war. Israel cannot afford to alienate the US, which is its primary security guarantor. Iranian instability: The Iranian regime is under economic distress due to “maximum pressure” sanctions. It is vulnerable to social unrest, not least because of its large youth population. These constraints have been vitiated in various ways, which is why we raise this Israeli unilateralism as a black swan risk: Where there’s a will, there’s a way: If Israel believes its existence will be threatened, it will be willing to take much greater operational risks. It has already shown some ability to set back Iran's centrifuge program beyond the expected.8 Israeli opinion will harden if Iran breaks out: If Iran reaches nuclear breakout or tests a nuclear device, Israeli opinion will harden in favor of military strikes. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has an incentive to take hawkish actions before he hands the reins of government over to a partner in his ruling coalition as part of a power-sharing agreement. The ruling coalition is so weak that a collapse cannot be ruled out. US opposition could weaken: Biden will have to explore military options if talks fail and Iran reaches nuclear breakout capacity. Once the midterms are over, Israel may have even more freedom to act, while a gridlocked Biden may be looking to shift his focus to foreign policy. Iranian stability: Iran’s social instability has not resulted in massive unrest or regime fracture despite years of western sanctions and a global recession/pandemic. Yet now energy prices are rising and Iran has less reason to believe sanction regimes will be watertight. From Israeli’s point of view, even regime change in Iran would not remove the nuclear threat once nuclear weapons are obtained. Finally, while Israel cannot guarantee that military strikes would successfully cripple Iran’s nuclear program and prevent weaponization, Israel cannot afford not to try. It would be a worse outcome to stand idly by while Iran gets a nuclear weapon than to attack and fail to set that program back. Hence the likeliest outcome over the long run is that Iran pursues a nuclear weapon and Israel attacks to try to stop it, even if that attack is likely to fail (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Game Theory: Will Israel Attack Iran? Bottom Line: A unilateral Israeli strike is unlikely but would have a massive impact, as 21% of global oil and 26% of natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and conflict could disrupt regional energy production and/or block passage through the strait itself. Black Swan #4: Cyber Attacks Spill Into Real World Investors are very aware of cyber security risks – it holds a respectable though not commanding position in the ranks of likely crisis events (Table 4). Our concern is that a cyber attack could spill over into the real world, impairing critical infrastructure, supply chains, and/or prompting military retaliation. Table 4Cyber Events Underrated In Consensus View Of Global Risks Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure by means of ransomware gangs disrupted a US fuel pipeline, meat-packing plant, and other critical infrastructure in 2021. Since then the two countries have engaged in negotiations over cyber security. The Russian Federal Security Bureau has cracked down on one of the most prominent gangs, REvil, in a sign that the US and Russia are still negotiating despite the showdown over Ukraine.9 Yet a re-invasion of Ukraine would shatter any hope of cooperation in the cyber realm or elsewhere. Russia is already using cyberattacks against Ukraine and these activities could expand to Ukraine’s partners if the military conflict expands. Should the US and EU impose sweeping sanctions that damage Russia’s economy, Russia could retaliate, not only by tightening energy supply but also by cyber attacks. Any NATO partners or allies would be vulnerable, though some states will be more reactive than others. Interference in the French election, for example, would be incendiary. The key question is: if Russia strikes NATO states with damaging cyber attacks, at what point would it trigger Article V, the mutual defense clause? There are no established codes of conduct or red lines in cyber space, so the world will have to learn each nation’s limits via confrontation and retaliation. Similar cyber risks could emerge from other conflicts. China is probably not ready to invade Taiwan but it has an interest in imposing economic costs on the island ahead of this fall’s midterm elections. Taiwan’s critical role in the semiconductor supply chain means that disruptions to production would have a global impact. Israel and the US have already used cyber capabilities to attack Iran and set back its nuclear program. These capabilities will be necessary as Iran approaches breakout capacity. Yet Iran could retaliate in a way that disrupts oil supplies. North Korea began a new cycle of provocations last September, accelerated missile tests over the past four months, and is dissatisfied with the unfinished diplomatic business of the Trump administration. In the wake of the last global crisis, 2010, it staged multiple military attacks against South Korea. South Korea may be vulnerable due to its presidential elections in May. The semiconductor or electronics supply chain could be interrupted here as well as in Taiwan. Bottom Line: There is no code of conduct in cyber space. As geopolitical tensions rise, and nations test the limits of their cyber capabilities, there is potential for critical infrastructure to be impaired. This could exacerbate supply chain kinks or provoke kinetic responses from victim nations. Black Swan #5: OPEC 2.0 Falls Apart The basis of the OPEC 2.0 cartel is Russian cooperation with Saudi Arabia to control oil supply and manage the forward price curve. Backwardation, when short-term prices are higher than long-term, is ideal for these countries since they fear that long-term prices will fall. In a world where Moscow and Riyadh both face competition from US shale producers as well as the green energy revolution, cooperation makes sense. Yet the two sides do not trust each other. Cooperation broke down both in 2014 and 2020, sending oil prices plunging. Falling global demand ignited a scramble for market share. Interestingly, Russian military invasions have signaled peak oil price in 1979, 2008, and 2014. Russia, like other petro-states, has greater room for maneuver when oil revenues are pouring in. But high prices also incentivize production, disincentivize cartel discipline, and trigger reductions in global demand (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Invasions And Oil Price Crashes Broadly speaking, Saudi oil production rose modestly during times of Russian military adventures, while overall OPEC production was flat or down, and Russian/Soviet production went up (Chart 9). Chart 9Saudi And OPEC Oil Production During Russian Military Adventures Since 2020, we have held that OPEC 2.0 would continue operating but that the biggest risk would come in the form of a renewed US-Iran nuclear deal that freed up Iranian oil exports. In 2014, the Saudis increased production in the face of the US shale threat as well as the Iranian threat. This scenario is still possible in 2022 but it has become a low-probability outcome. Even aside from the Iran dynamic, there is some probability that Russo-Saudi cooperation breaks down as global growth decelerates and new oil supply comes online. Bottom Line: The world’s inflation expectations are elevated and closely linked to oil prices. Yet oil prices hinge on an uneasy political agreement between Russia and Saudi Arabia that has fallen apart twice before. If Russia invades Ukraine, or if US withdraws sanctions on Iran, for example, then Saudi Arabia could make a bid to expand its market share and trigger price declines in the process. Two Bonus Black Swans: Turkey And Venezuela Turkey lashes out: Our Turkish Political Capital Index shows deterioration for President Recep Erdogan’s political capital across a range of variables (Table 5). With geopolitical pressures increasing, and domestic politics heating up ahead of the 2023 elections, Erdogan’s behavior will become even more erratic. His foreign policy could become aggressive, keeping the lira under pressure and/or weighing on European assets. Table 5Turkey: Erdogan’s Political Capital Wearing Thin Venezuela’s Maduro falls from power: Venezuelan regime changes often follow from military coups. These coups do not only happen when oil prices collapse – sometimes the army officers wait to be sure prices have recovered. Coup-throwers want strong oil revenues to support their new rule. An unexpected change of regimes would affect the oil market due to this country’s giant reserves. Bottom Line: Turkey’s political instability could result in foreign aggression, while Venezuela’s regime could collapse despite the oil price recovery. Investment Takeaways We are booking profits on our tactical long trades on large caps and defensive sectors. We will convert these to relative trades: long large caps over small caps, and long defensives over cyclicals. We also recommend converting our tactical long Japan trade into long Japanese industrials / short German industrials equities. If US-Russia diplomacy averts a war we will reconsider.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      “Gray Rhino” is a term coined by author Michele Wucker to describe large and probable risks that people neglect or avoid. For more, see thegrayrhino.com. 2     Xi Jinping recently characterized the “common prosperity” agenda as follows: “China has made it clear that we strive for more visible and substantive progress in the well-rounded development of individuals and the common prosperity of the entire population. We are working hard on all fronts to deliver this goal. The common prosperity we desire is not egalitarianism. To use an analogy, we will first make the pie bigger, and then divide it properly through reasonable institutional arrangements. As a rising tide lifts all boats, everyone will get a fair share from development, and development gains will benefit all our people in a more substantial and equitable way.” See World Economic Forum, “President Xi Jinping’s message to The Davos Agenda in full,” January 17, 2022, weforum.org. 3     Chancellor Scholz, when asked whether Germany would avoid using the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia re-invaded Ukraine, said, "it is clear that there will be a high cost and that all this will have to be discussed if there is a military intervention against Ukraine.” He was speaking with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. See Hans Von Der Burchard, “Scholz: Germany will discuss Nord Stream 2 penalties if Russia attacks Ukraine,” Politico, January 18, 2022, politico.eu. 4     For the Begin Doctrine, see Meir Y. Soloveichik, “The Miracle of Osirak,” Commentary, April 2021, commentary.org. 5     The estimate of 12-24 months to mount a nuclear warhead on a missile has been cited by various credible sources, including David Albright and Sarah Burkhard, “Highlights of Iran’s Perilous Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons,” Institute for Science and International Security, August 24, 2021, isis-online.org, and Eric Brewer and Nicholas L. Miller, “A Redline for Iran?” Foreign Affairs, December 23, 2021, foreignaffairs.com. 6     See Edieal J. Pinker, Joseph Szmerekovsky, and Vera Tilson, “Technical Note – Managing a Secret Project,” Operations Research, February 5, 2013, pubsonline.informs.org, as well as “What Can Game Theory Tell Us About Iran’s Nuclear Intentions?” Yale Insights, March 17, 2015, insights.som.yale.edu.  7     See Josef Joffe, “Increasingly Isolated, Israel Must Rely On Nuclear Deterrence,” Strategika 35 (September 2016), Hoover Institution, hoover.org. 8     The sabotage of the Iran Centrifuge Assembly Center at the Natanz nuclear facility in July 2020 “set back Iran’s centrifuge program significantly and continues to do so,” according to David Albright, Sarah Burkhard, and John Hannah, “Iran’s Natanz Tunnel Complex: Deeper, Larger Than Expected,” Institute for Science and International Security, January 13, 2022, isis-online.org. For a recent positive case regarding Israel’s capabilities, see Mitchell Bard, “Military Options Against Iran,” Jewish Virtual Library, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, January 2022, jewishvirtuallibrary.org.  9     For the FSB and REvil, see Chris Galford, “Russian FSB arrests members of REvil ransomware gang following attacks on U.S. infrastructure,” Homeland Preparedness News, January 18, 2022, homelandprepnews.com. For the Colonial Pipeline and JBS attacks, and other ransomware attacks, see Jonathan W. Welburn and Quentin E. Hodgson, “How the United States Can Deter Ransomware Attacks,” RAND Blog, August 9, 2021, rand.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)

Highlights The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – the OPEC 2.0 states capable of increasing production this year – will have to step up for coalition members unable to lift output, including Russia. US shale-oil output also will have to increase to cover demand. The COVID-19 omicron variant has proven to be less severe than anticipated, which likely will translate into a faster recovery in oil demand than was expected in December. One risk looms large: China's zero-COVID policy greatly reduced virus transmission in the country; however, this also reduced natural antibody protection in its population. This is exacerbated by a lack of mRNA vaccine availability. Faltering supply and strong demand will keep inventories tight, reducing buffers to supply shocks – e.g., the Kirkuk–Ceyhan Oil Pipeline explosion this week. We are returning our Brent forecast for 2022 to $80/bbl; for 2023, we continue to expect $81/bbl (Chart of the week). Our forecast assumes OPEC 2.0 will increase supply so as to keep Brent prices below $90/bbl. US shale-oil output also is expected to rise. We continue to see oil-price risk skewed to the upside. Still, demand-destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns remain clear risks to our outlook. Feature Given the relatively mild symptoms associated with the COVID-19 omicron variant, global oil demand likely will continue to recover lost ground and return to trend sooner than expected. Faltering supply from OPEC 2.0 member states means prices will remain elevated, and perhaps push higher. On the back of these fundamentals, we are restoring our Brent price forecast to $80/bbl for this year, and $81/bbl for 2023. This is the consensus view, and we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of sharing it. Presently, the oil market is bulled up, expecting high prices this year and next, with Brent forecasts clustering in the $80-$85/bbl range out to 2025.1 Some headline-grabbing forecasts call for $100-plus prices, as top OPEC 2.0 producers – e.g. Russia, Angola and Nigeria– continue to strain in their efforts to restore production, and demand remains buoyant (Chart 2). A consensus usually emerges after most market participants have adjusted their positioning to reflect a commonly held view. This usually is a temporary equilibrium. The market typically finds the highest-pain price trajectory required to shatter the consensus view – e.g., selling off because widely held demand expectations are too high or supply expectations are too low, and vice versa. Ultimately, a fundamental shock destabilizes the consensus, and prices move higher or lower to reflect the new reality. The biggest risks to our price forecast are demand destruction from high prices or widespread omicron-induced lockdowns.2 To keep prices from finding a new equilibrium above $90/bbl, a policy response from OPEC 2.0 to increase production will be required. In addition, US shale-oil output will have to increase. This is not to say we are dismissing above-consensus price realizations: Inventories will continue to draw hard as long as the level of supply remains below demand. This will leave little in the way of buffer stocks to even out price spikes, as the Ceyhan pipeline explosion demonstrated earlier this week.3 Geopolitical tensions are high in eastern Europe as Russia and the West square off, and in the Persian Gulf as Iran squares off against GCC states and the US.4 These structural and geopolitical risks leave markets exposed to volatile price spikes. OPEC 2.0 Falters Our forecast is contingent on the core OPEC 2.0 member states ex-Russia – KSA, Iraq, the UAE and Kuwait – increasing production by an average of ~ 3.34mmb/d in 2022 and 2.76 mmb/d in 2023 relative to 2021. Most of the increases comes from KSA, Iraq and UAE (Chart 3). In addition, we expect US shale-oil producers to increase their average output by 0.6mm b/d this year, and 1.07mm b/d in 2023 relative to 2021 (Chart 4). In 2022, US crude oil supply reaches 11.7mm b/d, and in 2023 it goes to 12.13mm b/d in our estimates. The slower increase in US output this year largely is a function of the delay we expect in assembling rigs and crews to significantly lift production from current levels. These production increases are needed to make up for ongoing downgrades of OPEC 2.0 member states' ability to increase output, including Russia, where we expect crude oil production to remain flat at a little over 10mm b/d this year on average (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) To Dec23 Back in July 2021, the coalition agreed to restore 400k b/d of production taken off the market in the wake of COVID-19 demand destruction. Thus far, the coalition has only managed to restore ~ 1.86mm b/d of the 2mm b/d pledged for August to December 2021, according to the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). For this year, the OIES notes OPEC 2.0 "will struggle to return more than 2 mb/d of withheld supplies in 2022, compared to the headline target of 3.76 mb/d."5 Our view rests on a policy call at the end of the day: We believe OPEC 2.0 – KSA in particular – is well aware of the demand-destruction potential high nominal prices and a strong USD pose, particularly as the US Fed is embarking on a rate-hike program to accompany the quantitative-tightening measures recently adopted. Absent a concerted effort to raise production by the core OPEC 2.0 states ex-Russia and the US shale producers, prices could move above $86/bbl as supply tightens and demand continues to rise. This can be seen in The Chart of the Week (the dashed brown curve depicting our estimate for prices without higher production). Importantly, even if such a concerted effort emerges, a failure to resolve the Iran nuclear talks with the US and its allies this year would keep more than 1mm b/d of production from returning to the market. This would push average Brent prices this year and next to or above $90/bbl. Oil Demand Recovery To Continue Provided we do not see widespread lockdowns resulting from the rapid transmission of the omicron variant, we expect global demand to grow close to 4.8mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d in 2023 (Chart 5). This reflects our view that – baring too-high prices or another full-scale COVID-induced lockdown in a key market like China – demand resumes its return to trend. It is important to point out that the increase in oil demand we expect is being driven by economic growth, which means consumers likely can withstand high prices, just as long as they do not become excessive – i.e., entrenched above $90/bbl in our view. Chart 5Global Oil Demand Forecast Remains Steady Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Production Policy Kept Supply Below Demand In our base case model, we continue to see markets remaining balanced (Chart 6) – assuming we get the policy calls right – and OECD oil inventories falling (Chart 7). Even with an uptick in inventories, which presently are 31.5mm barrels above the 2010-14 average, days-forward-cover for the OECD will remain low (Chart 8). Chart 7Crude Inventories Continue To Draw Investment Implications The consensus view calls for oil prices to remain at current elevated levels, and to perhaps push higher. We share that view – and have maintained it for some time – which gives us pause. A consensus not only reflects a shared view. It likely reflects broad similarities in the way market participants are positioned in their capex, investment and trading outlooks. This is inherently unstable. We expect oil prices to remain elevated, and have returned our 2022 Brent forecast to $80/bbl on average. Our 2023 forecast for Brent remains $81/bbl. We continue to recommend positions that benefit from tightening markets in which forward curves are backwardated and likely to remain so. Even if we see production increasing – from the OPEC 2.0 core producers ex-Russia and the US shales – we still expect forward Brent and WTI curves to remain backwardated (prompt-delivery prices exceed deferred-delivery prices). We remain long the S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF to express this view. If we fail to see production increase to keep prices from breaching and sustaining levels above $90/bbl, long index exposure will post higher gains. The risk to our view is two-fold: 1) High prices leading to demand-destruction, which is made more acute when the USD is strong; and 2) widespread omicron-induced lockdowns, which could once again reduce consumption and lead to global supply-chain gridlock. High prices leading to demand destruction, or another round of lockdowns would force us to reconsider our positioning.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Paula Struk Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy paula.struk@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish It's very early days, but EU experts are reviewing a draft plan leaked to the media earlier this month, which could result in gas- and nuclear-powered generation being included among sustainable energy sources, and suitable to bridge the global energy transition to renewable power. The draft of the common classification system for EU funding of sustainable economic activities, or taxonomy, apparently states gas plants can earn a “transitional” label if they meet several criteria, including an emissions limit of 270g of CO2e/kWh, or if their annual emissions average 550kg CO2e/kW or less over 20 years. This criterion would be applied to judging environmental performance of a gas plant over 20 years, but offers no guarantee that its emissions would drop over time. The chair of the expert panel said draft rules for nukes raised questions over "whether a plant can guarantee its green credentials today, if its obligation to manage nuclear waste – one of the main environmental concerns about the fuel – does not kick in until as late as 2050," according to euractiv.com, which broke the story earlier this month. Base Metals: Bullish Indonesia has become more restrictive with exports of raw commodities in order to attract more downstream investments and to play a bigger role in producing finished goods. Of these commodities, Indonesia’s supply of nickel, relative to the world is the highest, constituting ~ 38% of total global nickel supply. In 2020, the nation banned nickel ore exports, and is now considering a progressive export tax on low nickel content products such as ferronickel and nickel pig iron. This tax could reduce foreign investment in Indonesia’s nickel mines and global supply, which would, all else equal, support prices. These developments arrive on the back of low nickel inventories, which helped prices of the key battery metal reach a 10-year high last week (Chart 9).   Precious Metals: Bullish In 2021, gold ETFs were hit by outflows of ~ $9 billion, the main reason the yellow metal was unable to reach its 2020 high above the $2,000/oz mark (Chart 10). For this year, we expect a supportive gold market, as real interest rates will remain weak despite the Fed’s hawkish tilt to lift nominal interest rates higher. In line with BCA’s Foreign Exchange Strategy service, we expect the USD to fall over the 12-18 month horizon, which will also bolster gold. Chart 9       Footnotes 1     Please see Column: Oil prices expected to rise with big variation in projections: Kemp, published by reuters.com on January 19, 2022. 2     High nominal oil prices and a strong USD compound the former demand-destruction risk.  The latter risk of wide-spread omicron-induced lockdowns is elevated in China at present.  Its success in shutting down the transmission of earlier COVID-19 mutations has reduced the amount of antibodies to the virus in the population.  This is compounded by a lack of mRNA vaccine production and distribution, which leaves the country at risk to wide-spread omicron transmission.  In states with large shares of the population carrying COVID-19 antibodies – e.g., the UK – omicron is less of a risk and is on course to becoming endemic.  Please see 2022 Key Views: Past As Prelude For Commodities and Endemic COVID-19 Will Spur Commodities' Next Leg Higher which we published on December 16, 2021 and January 13, 2022 for discussions. 3    Oil flows are expected to return to normal in short order.  Please see Halted Iraq-Turkey flows to resume within hour: Botas, published by argusmedia.com on January 19, 2022. 4    Please see Russia/Ukraine: Implications From Kazakhstan and Geopolitical Charts For The New Year published by BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service on January 7 and 14, 2022, respectively, for discussions. 5    Please see Key Themes for the Global Energy Economy in 2022 published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies on January 18, 2022.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Trades Closed in 2021

Special Report

HighlightsRussian negotiators in Vienna say talks with the West over Ukraine have reached a “dead end.” If talks are verifiably discontinued, global investors should reduce risk in their portfolios.Social unrest in Kazakhstan does not reduce the probability that Russia will partially re-invade Ukraine. We still give 50/50 odds of new Russian military action.Our Geopolitical Strategy recommends staying short EM Europe versus DM Europe stocks; short RUB/CAD; short CZK/GBP; and long defense stocks.Risks to Russian financial markets remain very elevated due to the Ukraine situation.For Kazakhstan, our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends that dedicated EM credit investors overweight sovereign Kazakh credit relative to the EM benchmark. Equity investors should underweight Kazakhstani equities versus the emerging market equity benchmark.FeatureOn January 2, Kazakhstan witnessed an explosion of civil disorder, the worst since 1986, when it was still part of the Soviet Union. The government, with Russia’s help, has restored order for the time being. But Kazakhstan’s problems have broader lessons for investors that we explore in this report. Chart 1Global Social Unrest Adds To Supply Risks First, Kazakh unrest will not prevent Russia from staging a partial re-invasion of Ukraine, the odds of which are 50/50. These odds have not changed after this week’s high-level negotiations between Russia and the West.Theoretically instability in the former Soviet Union will constrain Russia’s foreign policy options. But Ukraine is of unique strategic value to Russia.If Russia believes its domestic politics and broader sphere of influence will become less stable in future, then it has more incentive to act now on long-term strategic objectives, like neutralizing Ukraine.Second, Kazakh unrest corroborates the emerging trend of global social unrest that we have been monitoring since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. This trend reinforces our strategic theme of populism and nationalism.The Kazakh government has been struggling to maintain popular support amid eight years of economic malaise and is now backtracking on fiscal discipline.Previously we identified the “Shia Crescent” – e.g. Iran and Iraq – as ripe for instability but now we can add Central Asia to the list. Kazakhstan is better off than most of Central Asia, which means that other countries are even more vulnerable to this kind of unrest. Even Russia is vulnerable, which supports the first point above.For investors the chief takeaway is to guard against commodity price overshoots, since Central Asia, like the Middle East and other regions, is vulnerable to production disruptions at a time of tight global supply (Chart 1).Yet investors should stay short Russian ruble and equities, as the showdown over Ukraine is not yet resolved.What Just Happened In Kazakhstan?The unrest began in the western city of Zhanaozen, a restive oil town, but escalated in Almaty, the country’s business center, located far away in the far southeast. The nationwide crisis resulted from two factors: (1) pandemic-induced recession and inflation and (2) an ongoing political leadership transition.To stabilize the situation, the government of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev gave “shoot to kill” orders to police and invited an extraordinary deployment of nearly 4,000 troops, mostly Russian peacekeepers, under the auspices of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Civil order has been at least temporarily restored and some Russian troops may already be leaving.1Reports indicate 164 civilian deaths and about 12,000 arrests. Authorities shut down the Internet so information about the events remains sketchy. The embers are still burning and further flareups can occur. To understand what happened we need to look at Kazakhstan’s geopolitics and recent political history.Kazakh GeopoliticsKazakhstan is a vast country that covers most of the steppe ranging from Russian Siberia to the mountains of Iran, Afghanistan, Krygyzstan, and China. The flatlands are interrupted only by large inland seas, the Caspian and Aral Seas in the west and Lake Balkash in the east, and Tian Shan mountains in the south.The geopolitical problem for Kazakhstan is how to control this vast area, given that its population, wealth, and technology are insufficient for the task. The strategic solution is to integrate or cooperate with the powerful Russian security apparatus while exploiting natural resources to generate revenues.Strongman former leader Nursultan Nazarbayev – who has immense influence and is apparently still in the country, though rumors say he fled into exile this month – founded Kazakhstan as a fledgling republic when the USSR fell. He sought to solidify the country’s independence by attracting foreign investment from capital-rich, resource-hungry foreign regions, while continuing to cooperate closely with the Russians on strategic security.Nazarbayev balanced Russia by means of new trade and investment partners: the EU and especially a rising China. China views Kazakhstan as the centerpiece of its Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to give China the leading role in developing the economies that lie between China and Russia and Europe.Kazakhstan’s population changes since the USSR fell suggest emerging Kazakh nationalism. Ethnic Kazakhs make up 69% of the population and have gained ever greater control of the state. Ethnic Russians have declined from 38% of the population in 1989 to 19%, and still falling, today. Kazakh nationalism is one of the drivers of today’s unrest, with the common folk feeling deprived of the country’s newfound wealth and blaming Russians, and especially Chinese and other foreigners, for exploiting the country’s resources.2Of course, the Kazakh elite are not unified, there are rival clans, and there is now a power struggle between Nazarbayev and Tokayev intertwined with the social unrest. But the point is that Kazakh nationalism poses a long-term challenge to Russian dominance. Russia will continue to have a major interest in Kazakhstan due to the presence of Russians as well as Russia’s own geopolitical needs, which forbid a truly independent Kazakhstan (Chart 2).3Kazakhstan is wealthier and better governed than its central Asia neighbors. Adjusted net national income per capita stands at $6717 versus the central Asian average of $2963. While the country’s governance is poor, it ranks higher than several major emerging markets when it comes to governance. It scores better than Russia, China, and Ukraine on the Economic Freedom Index. Income inequality is lower than in Turkey, China, and Russia. Corruption perceptions are not as bad as in China or Turkey (Chart 3).Having said that, governance is still weak and Kazakhstan’s government is very corrupt even if it scores better than some peers.The takeaway is that while social unrest will pose a persistent challenge, Kazakhstan is not a failed state. Real income growth has been strong enough and can be underpinned by government largesse for now (Chart 4). The recent riots were put down quickly.The country is blessed and cursed with abundant natural resources. Its economic structure is overly dependent on oil and natural gas production and distribution (Chart 5). The Great Recession and the oil price and commodity bust of 2014 caused a downshift in growth rates and initiated the current cycle of unrest. Chart 4Kazakh Real Income Grew Rapidly Pre-Pandemic​​​​​​ ​​​​​​Succession CrisisUnrest flared in 2011 and sporadically throughout the decade, including around Tokayev’s January 2021 election, and culminated in today’s riots. In 2019 Nazarbayev unexpectedly resigned as president and symbolically “handed power” to President Tokayev. The goal was not only to lay the groundwork for his eventual succession but also to share the blame for sluggish growth in the wake of the commodity boom.Nazarbayev kept the title of national leader, and the chairmanship of the powerful National Security Council, and intended to stay in control of most state functions. But Covid-19 foiled his plans. The global pandemic pushed the country into outright recession and sparked a new wave of social unrest that has evolved into a full-blown succession crisis.The Tokayev administration adopted Nazarbayev’s reform initiatives, and launched some of its own, but structural reforms provoked the seething populace. The proximate cause of today’s crisis was a government hike of liquefied petroleum gas prices. Global price pressures have caused the second major bout of food and fuel inflation since 2014, when the currency came under enormous devaluation pressure and the government was forced to float it (Chart 6). Inflation coinciding with recession and an illiberal succession process made for a noxious combination.Tokayev rose to power as Nazarbayev’s loyalist and is now attempting to purge the state of the former leader’s influence, making Nazarbayev into a scapegoat to appease popular wrath. He reversed the LPG price hike, reshuffled the cabinet, and is promising reforms. Simultaneously he is using a heavy hand against protesters and rioters. It is not known if security forces will remain loyal to him but so far they have cracked down aggressively.4 The Russian troops who came to Tokayev’s assistance reclaimed the Almaty airport.Russian backing will give Tokayev the extra physical and moral force he needs to stay in power for the time being. Beyond that, Tokayev may or may not survive. The power struggle with Nazarbayev’s faction will continue in the coming months and years. Nazarbayev controlled the security forces as well as most of the bureaucracy.Either way, the Kazakh state will persist more or less in its current form, for the following reasons:The country’s leaders, whoever they may be, are willing to use force and the security apparatus is large – Kazakhstan spends 5% of total government expenditure on internal security, more than Russia (Chart 7). Chart 6Inflation Tipped Kazakhstan Into Major Unrest​​​​​​ ​​​​​​The new global business cycle will sustain reasonable commodity prices that give the government fiscal resources to deal with unrest. Benchmark crude prices at $84 today are right in line with Kazakhstan’s fiscal breakeven oil price over the 2018-20 period (Chart 8A). As long as prices do not collapse the regime will be able to use revenues to fund security operations and placate disaffected groups (Chart 8B).​​​​​​​​​​​​Russia has a vital interest in preventing a revolution or regime failure in Kazakhstan. The rapid response of the CSTO in its first-ever peacekeeping mission abroad shows Russia’s seriousness. The Kazakh elite will continue to receive Russian backing (even beyond what they asked for!). Chart 9China No Longer Writing Blank Checks To Kazakhstan True, Kazakh nationalism and the exodus of Russian speakers will continue to pose problems for Russia over the long run. But the Kazakh government cannot meet its geopolitical needs without Russia, and there is no alternative – China is far from supplanting Russia’s influence.There is no chance of liberal democracy taking shape or of Kazakhstan revolutionizing its foreign relations: Russia and China would not allow it. The regime would be isolated. If Ukraine and Georgia cannot ally with the West and join NATO, then Kazakhstan cannot even think about it. It is stuck in its geopolitical situation.There is a chance that Russia will gain a little political influence vis-à-vis China once the dust settles, but any change is unlikely to be drastic. Nazarbayev oversaw a period of rising Chinese influence but never had the will or ability to turn away from Russia (Chart 9). Russia only needs to retain control of security in Kazakhstan – it does not oppose Chinese trade and investment as long as it does not threaten that control. Modern Russia is not the USSR and cannot afford to subsidize Kazakhstan on its own.American and European trade and investment with Kazakhstan could come under risk – especially if Russia’s broader showdown with the West results in western sanctions on Russia. But Europe is a dominant trading partner of Kazakhstan and Russia will face even greater trouble in this region if it interferes with EU trade. By contrast Kazakhstan will be an essential way for Russia to bypass western sanctions.Bottom Line: Kazakhstan is seeing a rise in populism and nationalism that will persist. But Kazakhstan’s structural problems are not so bad as to lead to regime failure. Elite infighting will be limited by Russia’s and China’s shared interest in supporting the current regime, as well as the country’s lack of geopolitical options.Will There Be A Global Impact?Kazakhstan’s importance to global economy and financial markets centers on its commodity production and distribution. Commodity output did not suffer much during recent unrest but it is possible that government resource taxes, labor strikes, or further unrest could impede exports.  Chart 10Kazakh Currency Compared To Ukrainian During 2014 War Kazakhstan makes up 1.7% of global oil production and 3.8% of global exports. A total cutoff of Kazakh oil exports, combined with the recent loss of 400,000 barrels per day of Libyan output, could reduce global oil inventories by 2.1%. There is no indication that a total cutoff is occurring but the country is not yet stable.Kazakhstan provides 0.8% of global natural gas supply, 2.1% of Chinese natgas consumption, and serves as a transit country for Turkmenistan natural gas exports. A total shutdown of this supply would amount to 1.3% of global imports and 3.3% of Chinese imports. Both China and Europe are already struggling with very low natural gas inventories and demand is high in the winter season. Thus while Kazakhstan’s exports so far continue mostly unimpeded, any future disruption would have a global impact.Otherwise Kazakhstan is mostly notable for providing 41% of the world’s uranium exports.Kazakhstan’s situation is very different from that of Ukraine. But if social unrest re-escalates, then the currency, the tenge, will collapse and follow the Ukrainian hryvnia’s trajectory since the 2014 Crimea crisis (Chart 10).The Russian ruble has fallen by 4.4% since the border showdown with Ukraine intensified in September, and 2.5% since the Kazakh unrest began. Russian equities have dropped off by 20% in absolute terms and 16% relative to EM equities since October 2021 (Chart 11). We expect the risk premium to remain high at least until the US and Russia reach some kind of mode of living with each other over the Ukraine standoff. Chart 11Market Pricing Higher Russian Geopolitical Risk, Weighing On Relative Equity Performance Bottom Line: The Kazakh situation is not yet interrupting commodity supply but disruptions cannot be ruled out. The broader point is that Kazakhstan’s sociopolitical problems are shared across many resource producers – and thus investors should bet on policy-induced supply challenges persisting.How Will Kazakhstan Affect Russia’s Standoff With The West?Kazakh unrest affects our strategic theme of great power struggle. The timing of the unrest is suspicious – it broke out just as Russia attempted to blackmail the US into strategic concessions by threatening to re-invade Ukraine (at least part of it).Tokayev explicitly blames foreign interference for the unrest and Russia may also blame the US at some point. It is possible. But foreign actors do not have to do much to spark unrest other than hold a match to the powder kegs of former Soviet states, which are poor, corrupt, ethnically divided, badly governed, and lacking in prospects for the young.The collapse of the Soviet Union and rise of independent republics structurally encourages nationalism and works against Russian centralism. The Eurasian Economic Union is a pathetic alternative to the European Union. The Internet spreads ideas about how life could be better.If Kazakhstan or other Central Asian states destabilize further, it could reduce the odds of Russian taking military action in Ukraine in the near term. Especially if Russia does not want to incur the costs of re-invading Ukraine anyway. But that does not appear to be the case so far.Renewed military conflict in Ukraine cannot be ruled out, for reasons we discussed in a recent special report, “Russia/Ukraine: Don’t Be Complacent.”Unlike Kazakhstan, Ukraine could integrate with the West both economically and militarily over the long run. If Russia believes that it will face greater troubles in its sphere of influence in the coming years – not only in Kazakhstan, but also in Belarus and Turkmenistan, and even at home – then it has all the more reason to settle the Ukrainian strategic question now, while it still has the advantage. Given that Tokayev and his Russian backers appear to have restored order quickly, Russia will turn back to Ukraine promptly.Russia’s goal in the newly opened negotiations with the US is to rule out NATO’s eastward expansion and force a halt to western arms sales and defense cooperation. If the US refuses to rule out NATO expansion and continues to provide arms and defense support for Ukraine (and Georgia), then Russia will take aggressive action. This is probably true even if the coals in Kazakhstan are still burning. Ukraine is long-term strategic threat to Russia, whereas Kazakhstan is ultimately isolated.Looking beyond Ukraine and the short term, Russia will probably have to start paying more attention to maintaining order within Russia and the former Soviet space, rather than clawing back control of parts of the Soviet space that it lost. If Kazakhstan is relatively well off compared to other central Asian states, then its current crisis suggests other crises await.Belarus has already seen the first rumblings of its own succession crisis and instability – and it is more susceptible to western influence than Kazakhstan. Turkmenistan is another candidate for political change. Kyrgyzstan is already in tumult. There are several former Soviet countries whose autocratic leaders, like Nazarbayev, have been in power too long – including Russia’s own President Putin. Post-pandemic economic troubles and inflation will accelerate the decay of these administrations (Chart 12).Kazakhstan also shows that even a carefully arranged succession, in which the autocrat tries to keep power behind the scenes but phase out his rule gradually, can instantly give way to factional struggle and national chaos as soon as something goes wrong for the new administration. Chart 13Putin Has Record Of Boosting Domestic Support Via Foreign Adventures Nazarbayev is the founding father of Kazakhstan – the capital was just renamed Nur-Sultan, in his honor, in 2019 – and yet his best laid plans were overturned in a week. Now he is on the verge of exile, and his faction may or may not avoid being purged. This is a serious problem for Putin to consider – and if Russia’s succession is not smooth then the world will experience a huge increase in uncertainty.A risk to the view would be that Russia drastically cuts back on its foreign ambitions – and settles with the US over Ukraine – because it recognizes sociopolitical instability as the massive challenge that it is in Russia and its sphere of influence. But we have clear evidence from the past 30 years that Russia responds to domestic weakness with foreign adventurism (Chart 13). Maybe Kazakhstan will mark a change to that pattern. But the thing to watch will be US-Russia strategic negotiations, not Kazakhstan.Regarding US-Russia negotiations, this week’s important diplomatic talks have not lowered the risk of conflict. The US did not offer the required concessions: it did not rule out Ukraine joining NATO someday and did not forswear future defense cooperation with Ukraine. Russia carried out tank drills near Ukraine in a signal that it will not negotiate forever. As we go to press, there is no basis for lowering the risk level of renewed military conflict.Bottom Line: Russia and the former Soviet Union face rising political instability in the coming years. Moscow has a record of pursuing foreign adventures when troubled at home. We still would not rule out a limited re-invasion of Ukraine if the US does not concede limits to NATO expansion and defense cooperation.An Unbalanced EconomyKazakhstan’s economic outlook still hinges by and large on commodity prices, especially oil and natural gas prices. Importantly, the unrest appears to have left the country’s natural resource production unaffected, for now.As long as global resource prices stay elevated, they will provide the Kazakhstani government with the financial means to bolster income and keep the economy going despite lingering political uncertainty.Historically, economic activity and financial markets have tracked the 6-month average of commodity prices (Chart 14). So, major trends in commodity prices, not their short-term fluctuation, have mattered for the Kazakh economy and its equity and sovereign credit relative performance versus EM and frontier market peers.    Chart 14Medium-Term Oil Prices Drive Economy & Markets In the past 12 months, oil and natural gas have represented 50% of overall export revenues, and government revenues from this industry accounted for almost a third of the total. Kazakhstani oil production will be constrained by the OPEC+ agreement at least until December 2022. Afterwards, oil output will most likely surpass the 2020 peak (Chart 15, top panel). Chart 15Commodity Production​​​​​​ Other non-energy commodities represent the other half of export revenues. Since 2016, the country’s production of non-oil commodities has been rising (Chart 15, bottom 3 panels). Rising output volumes along with elevated prices, for now at least, will provide the government with sufficient revenues to support income and economic growth.In the long run, however, government stimulus and spending can sustain high nominal growth but not real growth. In any economy, real GDP growth is solely determined by the nation’s productivity and labor force growth (Chart 16) Chart 16Real Vs. Nominal GDP The structural growth outlook is dismal:Productivity growth has slowed to a mere 1% (Chart 17, top panel). Stagnant productivity translates to mediocre real per capita income.    Chart 17Meager Productivity Growth​​​​​​ Working age population is projected to grow by 1% annually over the next decade according to UN projections (Chart 17, bottom panel). The country has had negative net immigration balance, i.e., more people are leaving the country than entering it. This will only get worse following the protests and increased political uncertainty. Chart 18Large Profit Repatriation By Multinationals Kazakhstan has failed to develop a domestic manufacturing capacity. Even though authorities have been promoting import substitution in key sectors, these policies have failed to produce tangible results. It is unlikely to be different going forward despite the intentions of President Tokayev to launch structural reforms.Finally, the country has not reaped the full benefits from commodity export revenues. Even though the trade balance was boosted by the country’s commodity export revenues, most of these revenues are being repatriated out of the country through multinational companies’ profits.The country has been running trade surpluses but current account deficits. Chart 18 demonstrates that over 13% of GDP (or $24 billion) in the form of income leaves the country, which is much larger than the trade surplus (Chart 18). This is unlikely to change because multinationals have invested heavily in Kazakhstan’s resource industries, and they will continue reaping a large share of the profits from these industries.     Bottom Line: High commodity prices will enable more government spending, which will sustain the nation’s nominal growth over the medium term. However, beyond the medium term, real economic growth will underwhelm due to the lack of productivity gains.Easy Fiscal + Tight Monetary Policy = Stable Exchange RateInflation in Kazakhstan will prove to be sticky. Headline and core inflation are well above the central bank’s target of 4-6% (see Chart 6 above). Inflation is a politically and socially sensitive issue and persistent high inflation could once again fuel public discontent. Hence, Kazakhstani authorities have a strong political incentive to moderate inflation. Chart 19Wages Outpacing Productivity Overall, policymakers will adopt a tight monetary and loose fiscal policy mix. This will ensure currency stability for now.On the one hand, the National Bank of Kazakhstan (NBK) will continue hiking interest rates. Interestingly, before the recent unrest, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev was calling on the central bank to raise interest rates to curb accelerating inflation.On the other hand, fiscal spending will be strong, exerting upward pressure on inflation. Government spending plans for FY 2022 prior to the unrest were geared towards public wage increases alongside direct transfers to households from the National Fund. Now, chances are that these measures will be even larger, and front loaded to appease the population.Soaring nominal wages and lack of productivity gains entail surging unit labor costs (Chart 19). The latter will prolong inflationary pressures.Currency depreciation will fuel higher inflation. Hence, achieving currency stability will for now be the key macro objective for policymakers.To avoid residents converting local currency deposits into US dollars, the central bank needs to offer positive real rates in the tenge deposits by pushing interest rates above the inflation rate. Real (deflated by core CPI) interest rates on domestic local currency deposits have turned to almost a full 1% negative. As a result, aggressive rate hikes by the central bank should be expected in the coming months.Finally, the central bank has adequate foreign exchange reserves to counter capital flight by the country’s elites and to service foreign debt obligations due in the next 12 months.Bottom Line: Faced with strong inflationary pressures, the central bank will be forced to hike interest rates considerably. By doing so, it will maintain elevated enough real interest rates to avert the currency from dropping meaningfully and driving inflation higher.Investment ConclusionsGreat Power Struggle: Russia’s critical negotiations with the West (the US, NATO, and the OSCE) have not produced a diplomatic breakthrough this week. Media reports suggest the talks have gone badly but talks are ongoing as we go to press. If talks are verifiably discontinued, it will be a risk-off sign for global investors.We expect Russian and Eastern European financial assets to suffer a high risk premium until a diplomatic solution presents itself. This is true despite high energy/commodity prices that would otherwise benefit Russia. In the event of a partial reinvasion of Ukraine and western sanctions on Russia, energy prices could spike and harm global demand.Populism and Nationalism: Kazakhstan’s situation has stabilized temporarily but it could easily flare up again given the negative cyclical & structural macroeconomic and political backdrops. Kazakh unrest highlights the high risk of social unrest in the former Soviet Union and in other EMs in the wake of the global pandemic.Risks to Russian markets remain very elevated due to the Ukraine situation. We continue to recommend underweighting Russian stocks, a neutral stance on local bonds and overweighting sovereign credit relative to the their respective EM benchmarks.Kazakhstan's exchange rate will be stable for now. Authorities will avoid any major downside moves in the currency in the medium term and they have the means – in the form of large foreign exchange reserves – to do so.As such, we recommend that dedicated EM credit investors overweight sovereign Kazakh credit relative to the EM respective benchmark. Low public debt and adequate foreign exchange reserves (including the National Fund) will support the ability of government to service its foreign debt.Lastly, equity investors should underweight Kazakhstani equities versus the emerging market equity benchmark. Matt Gertken Vice PresidentGeopolitical Strategymattg@bcaresearch.com Andrija VesicAssociate Editorandrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes1      For a breakdown of the troop deployments by country, see Catherine Putz, "CSTO Deploys to Kazakhstan at Tokayev’s Request," The Diplomat, thediplomat.com, January 6, 2022.2     For Kazakh nationalism, see Paul Goble, "New Wave of Kazakh Nationalism Changing Astana’s Domestic and Foreign Policies," Eurasia Daily Monitor 16:32, March 7, 2019, and Serik Rymbetov, "Anti-China Sentiments Grows [sic] in Kazakhstan as Economic Cooperation Stalls," Eurasia Daily Monitor 18:118, July 26, 2021, Jamestown Foundation, Jamestown.org.3     Dosym Satpayev, "Identity Politics," in "Kazakhstan: Tested By Transition," Chatham House Report, November 27, 2019, chathamhouse.org.4     Paul Stronski, "Kazakhstan’s Unprecedented Crisis," Carnegi Endowment for International Peace, January 6, 2022, carnegiendowment.org.